Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 978 (GUJ)

Charutar Aroga Mandal v. Union of India

2018-08-10

MOHINDER PAL

body2018
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Mohinder Pal, J. Both the aforementioned Special Civil Applications and interim application are taken up together having overlapping facts and ultimately, praying for the same relief’s. 2. Petitioner No.1 in both the petitions is a society under the Society Registration Act, 1860 and also a Public Trust under Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. Petitioner No.1, inter-alia, runs petitioner No.2 College, which was established by petitioner No.1 in the year 1987 and since then, petitioner No.2-College is engaged in imparting education in the discipline of medicines. 3. Petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 13373 of 2017 has prayed for following relief’s : (A) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 31.05.2017 passed by Respondent No.1, (a copy of which figures at Annexure-U to the petition) and thereupon be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondent to ensure that the intake of petitioner No.2 college for the academic year 2017-2018 as also for the subsequent academic years continues to remain as 150 seats for the concerned course at the level of graduation in the discipline of medicines offered by the petitioner No.2 College leading to the educational qualification of MBBS. (B) That pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the implementation and operation of the impugned order dated 31.05.2017, (a copy of which figures at Annexure-U to the petition) and thereupon be pleased to permit the intake of petitioner No.2 College for the academic year 2017-2018 as 150 seats for the concerned course in the discipline of medicine at the level of graduation leading to the educational qualification of MBBS on such terms and conditions as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper". The petitioner in Civil Application No.1 of 2018 in Special Civil Application No.13373 of 2017 has prayed for following relief’s : (A) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct opponent No.2 to inspect the setup of Applicant No.2 College for the consideration for renewal of permission for increase in intake from 100 seats to 150 seats with effect from academic year 2017-2018 at the earliest and thereupon the same may be decided by opponent No.1 in accordance with law. (B) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass any such other order as may be deemed necessary on the facts and in the circumstances of the case." The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 538 of 2018 has prayed for following relief’s : (A) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding Respondent No.1 to remove the impugned order dated October 18, 2017, a copy of which figures at 'Annexure-M' to the petition and thereupon, to restore the original order dated August 18, 2017, a copy of which figures at 'Annexure-F' to the petition. (B) That pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the implementation and operation of the impugned order dated October 18, 2017, a copy of which figures at 'Annexure-M' to the petition'. 4. On 26.08.2015, petitioner made an application called Scheme under Section 10-A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 ('IMC Act', for short) for increase in intake capacity for MBBS course from 100 seats to 150 seats for academic year 2016-2017 under the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999. In the said regulations, Medical Council of India ('MCI' for short) was required to evaluate in terms of desirability and feasibility, for setting up of medical college and to assess the capability for providing necessary infrastructure. Under Regulation No.8, Medical Council grants the permission on the basis of inspection. 5. On 7/8.12.2015 and 05.04.2016, inspection was carried out by MCI for academic year 2016-2017. In view of the deficiency in minimum infrastructure, teaching faculty and other physical facilities, MCI recommended not to grant the increase in intake capacity from 100 to 150 seats. On 10.06.2016, Respondent No.1-Union of India through Ministry of Health and Family Welfare rejected the aforesaid Scheme on the premise that the recommendations of MCI pursuant to the aforesaid inspection were in negative. 6. On 13.08.2016 and 20.08.2016, the petitioner once again applied for increase in intake capacity for the year 2017-2018 from 100 seats to 150 seats. Petitioner-College was granted conditional permission pursuant to the decision dated 13.08.2016. Here, the petitioner was granted conditional permission subject to conditions laid down by the Oversight Committee ('OC', for short). 6. On 13.08.2016 and 20.08.2016, the petitioner once again applied for increase in intake capacity for the year 2017-2018 from 100 seats to 150 seats. Petitioner-College was granted conditional permission pursuant to the decision dated 13.08.2016. Here, the petitioner was granted conditional permission subject to conditions laid down by the Oversight Committee ('OC', for short). In view of the directions issued by the Oversight Committee headed by retired Judge of the Apex Court, on 9/10.01.2017, a surprise inspection carried out by MCI, the deficiencies persisted, and as per report, there was non-compliance of the undertaking filed by the petitioner-College before Oversight Committee. On 31.01.2017, MCI recommended to Government of India to debar the petitioner-College for 2 years as there were deficiencies. After the petitioner having been called for personal hearing on 10.04.2017, Central Government vide its order dated 31st May, 2017 directed that college be debarred for two academic years. 7. Aggrieved from this decision by the Government, petitioners on 14.07.2017 preferred Special Civil Application No.13373 of 2017 before this Court and learned Single Judge vide order dated 31.07.2017 granted interim relief in terms of para 35(b) on the conditions of compliance. Order dated 31.07.2017 passed by learned Single Judge was challenged before the Division Bench wherein, this order came to be set aside. Further directions were given to list the matter on 14.08.2017 before learned Single Judge. As earlier learned Single Judge vide order dated 31.07.2017 has granted relief’s to the petitioner-College in pursuance thereof, Central Government vide order dated 18.08.2017 granted conditional permission to intake additional 50 students to the petitioner-College and accordingly, on 18.08.2017, 28.08.2017 and 29.08.2017, the students were allotted to the petitioner-College by Admission Committee for Professional Courses ('ACPC', for short). The fact regarding admission came to the notice of MCI, who communicated the order of Division Bench to the Central Government on 26.09.2017 informing therein that the order passed by learned Single Judge was vacated by the Division Bench on 09.08.2017. However, the petitioner College has concealed this fact from the Government at the time of granting permission on 18.08.2017. Having come to know about LPA decision, Central Government withdrew its recommendations on 18.11.2017. Thereafter, order seems to have been passed by MCI directing the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 to discharge additional 50 students. However, the petitioner College has concealed this fact from the Government at the time of granting permission on 18.08.2017. Having come to know about LPA decision, Central Government withdrew its recommendations on 18.11.2017. Thereafter, order seems to have been passed by MCI directing the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 to discharge additional 50 students. The State Government vide its order dated 15.12.2017 has also directed the College to discharge the additional 50 students taken in pursuance to the letter of the Central Government dated 18.08.2017. 8. On 12.01.2018, petitioners preferred second petition being Special Civil Application No.538 of 2018 seeking directions to remove the impugned order dated 18.11.2017 passed by the Central Government and further prayer to restore the original order dated 18.08.2017 vide which they were granted the permission to admit the students. Thereafter, petitioners continuously requested MCI to inspect the premises. However, MCI refused to do so in view of the debarment of 2 years. Accordingly, on 28.03.2018, an Interim Application No.1 of 2018 was moved in Special Civil Application No.13373 of 2017 seeking inspection of premises for academic year 2017-2018. 9. Mci has contested this petition by filing detailed reply wherein, it has been submitted that interim relief earlier granted by learned Single Judge was subsequently vacated by the Division Bench. The fact regarding setting aside of interim order by the Division Bench was well in the knowledge of the petitioners. However, they deliberately concealed this fact from the Central Government and succeeded in obtaining order dated 18.08.2017 vide which conditional permission to intake additional 50 students for academic year 2017-2018 has been obtained. It is submitted that after central Government was informed by MCI about the concealment by the petitioner, the permission granted by the Central Government was rightly withdrawn vide its order dated 18.11.2017. The prayer for inspection to the infrastructure facilities for the academic year 2017-18 is wholly unjustified. Having admitted the students under ad-interim order and subsequently, it being set aside by the Division Bench, it was not open to the petitioner College to contend that since the students are admitted, the strength for 150 students be regularized and for the said exercise, the request by the petitioner seeking inspection in July, 2018 for the Academic Year 2017-2018 was wholly unjustified and against the Regulations of MCI i.e. Regulation No. 8(3)(1)(c) of MCI. 10. 10. It is further their case that deficiencies of bed occupancy being less than 70%, the Regulations do not permit any further inspection and therefore, the order, if any, passed by the Court for intake of the students for 2017-2018 will be inconsistent and in violation of aforementioned regulations. Similarly, prayer for intake of students for academic year 2018-2019 and further directions to MCI to inspect the premises for this session will be unjustified and it is requested that both these petitions were liable to be dismissed. 11. Mr. D.C. Dave, learned senior counsel has raised various points in his arguments. It has been submitted that the order dated 31st May, 2017 passed by the respondent No.1-Union of India under Section 10-A(4) of the IMC Act (which is subject matter of challenge in the first petition) denying continuance of increase intake of 150 seats for the academic year 2017-2018 deserves to be quashed as a non speaking order. It was obligatory of respondent No.1 Union of India to assign reasons in support of its order. As such, if recourse is made to the explanation in detail provided by petitioner No.2-College during the course of hearing before the Hearing Committee of respondent No.1-Union of India. It becomes ex-facie evident that the deficiencies alleged against the petitioner No.2-College by MCI were either non-existent or too trivial in nature to warrant any action much less an action of non continuance of increase intake of 150 seats for the academic year 2017-2018 and invocation of bank guarantee. Mr. Dave has referred to an identical situation arising out in a matter reported in (2017) 16 SCC 557 and (2017) 16 SCC 666 , wherein, Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to quash the order passed by the Respondent No.1 - Union of India declining the permission to concerned colleges to admit the students. 12. Mr. Dave, learned senior counsel has argued that the students have been admitted for the academic year 2017-2018 by the admission committee of the State in petitioner No.2-College on the basis of increase in intake of 150 students permitted by Respondent No.1 by passing order dated 18.08.2017. There is additional reason to quash the impugned order dated 31st May, 2017 by Respondent No.1-Union of India on lines indicated in the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court. There is additional reason to quash the impugned order dated 31st May, 2017 by Respondent No.1-Union of India on lines indicated in the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court. It has been argued that there was no reason for Respondent No.1- Union of India to pass an order dated 18th October, 2017 which is impugned in the second petition on the premise mentioned therein that recalling earlier order dated 18th August, 2017 when Respondent No.1 was aware about the order passed in aforesaid LPA on account of it being a party thereto and further, when even MCI did not object to the said order dated 18.08.2017 before its implementation despite the same being marked to it. 13. Mr. Dave, learned senior counsel has finally submitted that main opposition in intake of the students is from MCI which is a recommendatory body. It has been argued that final authority was Respondent No.1-Union of India and it has not even bothered to defend its order impugned in the present petitions by filing reply thereto presumably appreciating the limitation at its end to defend the same in view of the position of law governing the field thereof. 14. On the other hand, Mrs. V.D. Nanavati, learned counsel appearing on behalf of MCI has submitted that earlier petitioners made an application for increase in intake capacity from 100 to 150 seats for the academic year 2016-2017. An inspection was carried out by MCI. However, the permission was declined in view of deficiencies in infrastructure and teaching faculty. It has been submitted that thereafter on 13.08.2016, petitioners applied for increase in intake capacity and their matter was taken up by the Oversight Committee. Such Committee granted permission to admit additional 50 students for academic year 2016-2017 subject to certain conditions which the petitioners have undertaken to be fulfilled. It has been argued that the conditions regarding infrastructure and faculty remained unfulfilled and despite students having been admitted and on the basis of recommendations made by MCI, the Central Government vide its decision dated 31.05.2017 debarred the College from admitting the additional students for two academic years. She has argued that the deficiencies in occupancy and teaching faculty directly hit regulations being Regulation No.8(3)(1)(c) framed by MCI. She has argued that the deficiencies in occupancy and teaching faculty directly hit regulations being Regulation No.8(3)(1)(c) framed by MCI. It has been argued that there was no breach of principles of natural justice as claimed by the petitioners because of undertaking offered by the petitioners, the Oversight Committee had granted permission to have 50 more students conditionally. The petitioner-Institute has breached the terms and conditions of undertaking and upon inspection carried out, it was found that there was deficiencies of bed occupancy and further inspection cannot be carried out under Regulation No.8(3)(1)(c) framed by MCI. Further, it has been argued that interim application for inspection cannot be granted for academic year 2017-2018 as the academic year is already over. Regulation No.8(3) restricts inspection in a case where there is deficiency of bed occupancy much less than 70% and college is debarred for 2 years so MCI cannot conduct assessment of college. Otherwise also, the schedule for academic year 2018-2019 was over and the question of inspection does not arise. The prayer for inspection runs contrary to the schedule as prescribed under Medical College Establishment Regulations 2000 which are approved by the Apex Court in Ashish Ranjan others V/s. Union of India, (2016) 11 SCC 225 wherein, it has been held that once inspection schedule is prescribed, no permission can be granted after 31st of May. 15. Mrs. Nanavati, learned counsel has further argued that MCI is under statutory obligations and its uniformity applied to all the applicants. MCI was under obligation not to pick and choose in accepting the application after the date fixed in the Regulations. Strict adherence of time schedule for accepting the application is necessary for maintenance of discipline in discharging statutory function. While relying upon these arguments, it has been submitted that these petitions were not maintainable as medical college has grossly failed to meet the required standards set out in the Indian Medical Council Act as well as regulations made thereunder for establishment of a new medical college and increase in intake of existing colleges. In support of these contentions, she has referred to following judgments. Citation Name of Party Page/Paragraph Page of Reply 2015 (10) SCC 19 Royal Medical Trust V/s. Union of India and anr. In support of these contentions, she has referred to following judgments. Citation Name of Party Page/Paragraph Page of Reply 2015 (10) SCC 19 Royal Medical Trust V/s. Union of India and anr. 31 at page 348 34 at page 350 320 to 353 2016 (11) SCC 530 Medical Council of India v/s. Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS) and others Para 9,10,11,30,31,21,26 399 to 417 2016 (11) SCC 225 Ashish Ranjan and ors. V/s. Union of India Page 258, 264 256 to 269 2005 (2) SCC 65 MridulDhar V/s. UOI & Ors. Para 28, 30, 32 270-290 2012 (7) SCC 433 Priya Gupta V/s. State of Chhattishgarh Para 40, 42, 45, 47, 49 291 to 319 2015 (10) SCC 51 D.Y. Patil Medical College V/s. Medical Council of India & Anr. Head Note : C and Para 25 359- 376 2013 (10) SCC 60 Manohar Lal Sharma V/s. Medical Council of India Page 27 (Inspectors are experts and Doctors with integrity) 386-398 2017 SCC Online SC 376 Dental Council of India V/s. Dr. Hedgewar Smruti Rugna Seva Mandal Hingoll & Others Para 26 418-446 W.P. No. 3506/2017 Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore Shri Aurobindo Institute of Medical Sciences V/s. Government of India & Anr. Para 27, 28, 29, 33 659-677 16. This Court has considered the submissions made by both the sides. 17. Originally, petitioners have applied for increase in intake of students from 100 to 150 vide their application dated 26.08.2015. The inspection by MCI was carried out. However, the College was found deficient in many respects and accordingly, further enhancement of 50 students from 100 to 150 was declined. Thereafter, Hon'ble Supreme Court seems to have formed a Committee under the chairmanship of Justice R.M. Lodha, Retired Judge of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India which took up such disputes concerning the admission to the medical colleges for the entire country including college of the petitioners. This Oversight Committee permitted to increase in intake capacity of petitioner No.2-College for academic year 2016-2017. This permission was proceeded by a surprise inspection of the college at the behest of Oversight Committee. Respondent No.1-Union of India addressed a communication to petitioner No.2-College conveying that permission to intake 100 to 150 students was granted with effect from academic year 2016- 2017 subject to compliance of conditions laid down by the Oversight Committee in its order dated 13.08.2016. Respondent No.1-Union of India addressed a communication to petitioner No.2-College conveying that permission to intake 100 to 150 students was granted with effect from academic year 2016- 2017 subject to compliance of conditions laid down by the Oversight Committee in its order dated 13.08.2016. It is case of the petitioners that on 13.08.2016, petitioner No.2-College addressed a communication to Respondent No.1- Union of India that it has complied with the conditions granted for intake as aforesaid. Thereafter, intake of petitioner No.2-College stood at 150 seats for the academic year 2016-2017 and the admissions thereon were accordingly granted by the Admission Committee of the State through the centralized process of admission. 18. On 9.1.2017, Inspecting Team of MCI carried out inspection of petitioner No.2-College for the purpose of considering as to whether petitioner No.2-College deserved extension. Upon conclusion of such inspection, as per prevailing practice, Dean of the petitioner No.2-College was furnished a summary of inspection by the Inspecting Team of MCI pointing out deficiencies stated to have been noticed by the inspecting team during the course of said inspection. Petitioner-College received a notice of hearing from Union of India somewhere in April, 2017. Officials of the Health and Family Welfare Department pursuant to the communication dated 31.1.2017 addressed by MCI recommending non extension of increased intake for further 2 academic years 2017-18 and 2018-19. Thereafter, Dean of the College has appeared before the Committee constituted by Respondent No.1-Union of India and explained the removal of short comings. However, on 23.06.2017, the petitioner-College came to know about the decision taken by the respondents according to which, they were debarred from admitting the students from academic year 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 for increase in intake accorded to it for the academic year 2016-2017 by the decision of the Oversight Committee. 19. It could be seen that thereafter, petitioners have approached this Court by way of Special Civil Application No. 13373 of 2017 challenging the aforesaid order of respondent No.1 Union of India. Learned Single Judge by way of interim order permitted the intake of additional 50 students for academic year 2017-2018. This order was carried before the LPA Court which set aside this order on 9.8.2017 and directed the parties to appear before the learned Single Judge on 14.08.2017. Learned Single Judge by way of interim order permitted the intake of additional 50 students for academic year 2017-2018. This order was carried before the LPA Court which set aside this order on 9.8.2017 and directed the parties to appear before the learned Single Judge on 14.08.2017. It will be relevant to note that on 18.08.2017, Union of India permitted to increase of 150 seats to the petitioner No.2-College for the academic year 2017-2018. Some riders were attached to this order to the effect that permitting the continuance of increased intake for 2017-2018 would be subject to final outcome of Special Civil Application No.13373 of 2017 and order which might be passed in respect of such final outcome in LPA and SLP. 20. The interesting thing has happened here. The order passed by the learned Single Judge permitting intake of additional 50 students has been set aside by the LPA Court on 9.8.2017. However, respondent No.1 - Union of India has permitted intake of additional students on 18.08.2017 i.e. after passing of the orders by LPA Court. Argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the fact regarding decision by the LPA Court was in the knowledge of MCI whose representatives were very much present at the time when Union of India has taken the decision to permit the petitioner No.2 to admit the additional 50 students. It is further their case that acting upon the aforesaid decision, additional 50 students were allotted to petitioner No.2-College by the State of Gujarat and admissions were completed by 28.08.2017. Mr. Dave, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has argued that there was no reason to backtrack from the decision once petitioners have been permitted to admit the students and students have started their classes. 21. There is no denying fact that some misunderstandings and confusions have taken place as a result of which, additional 50 seats were allowed to be filled vide order dated 18th August, 2017 passed by the Central Government. Thereafter, in pursuance to the communication by MCI, dated 26.09.2017, the permission granted by Central Government was withdrawn on 18th November, 2017. On the basis of subsequent withdrawal, MCI has written to the petitioner-College to discharge additional 50 students admitted by it. Similar are the recommendations of State of Gujarat. 22. Thereafter, in pursuance to the communication by MCI, dated 26.09.2017, the permission granted by Central Government was withdrawn on 18th November, 2017. On the basis of subsequent withdrawal, MCI has written to the petitioner-College to discharge additional 50 students admitted by it. Similar are the recommendations of State of Gujarat. 22. Though both these agencies have written to the College to discharge 50 students who were granted admission but nothing has been said about the future of these students who were admitted for the courses and admissions were over in other colleges. 23. Under similar circumstances, in some of the cases in past such students were reallocated to other colleges which could be done in the present case. This alternative remedy is also not free from faults. Students select their college while keeping in mind various factors like reputation of the college, place where college is situated and placements after completion of courses etc. Furthermore, the fact that the College in question was in existence since 1987 might be an additional factor. 24. On the day of inspection by MCI team, there were deficiencies like occupation of beds and faculty, etc.. These deficiencies have been explained by the petitioners while referring to the Utrayan festival in Gujarat which falls on 14th January each year. The inspection team has gone to inspect the premises on 9/10 January. It is known fact that during this period most of the people including Doctors are busy in celebrating this festival which has become an international festival now. It will be relevant to point out that not only on Utrayan, the Doctors in the State of Gujarat are not available during Diwali holidays also which is contrary to the traditions in the rest of India. If a patient knows in advance that Doctors may not be available during Utrayan, he will prefer to postpone surgery as indoor patient. 25. Learned counsel for the MCI has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Amma Chandravati Educational and Charitable Trust and others V/s. Union of India and another, 2017 16 SCC 265 . In this judgment, there are directions for reconstituting of Oversight Committee which was to continue till Central Government puts in its place other mechanism. In this judgment, there are directions for reconstituting of Oversight Committee which was to continue till Central Government puts in its place other mechanism. Reliance on this judgment is without any basis because in pursuance to the same, simply Oversight Committee which was constituted earlier under the Chairmanship of Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha in the Academic Year 2016-2017 came to be reconstituted under the chairmanship of Doctor V.K. Paul, Professor & Head, Paediatrics, AIIMS, New Delhi and even the functions assign to it came to be re-framed. 26. Further, learned counsel for the respondent-MCI has placed reliance upon the case between Medical Council of India V/s. Vedantaa Institute of Academic Excellence Pvt. Ltd. and others, (2018) 8 Scale 9. In this case, Vedantaa Institute filed a writ petition in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay seeking directions to the appellant Medical Council of India to send its expert team for the purposes of verifying the compliance of deficiencies pointed out earlier. High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the Medical Council of India to inspect the medical college and submit a report to the Union of India before 30th April, 2018. Aggrieved thereby, MCI has filed an appeal before the Apex Court. Hon'ble Apex Court allowed the petition by holding that fixing the minimum standards which have to be fulfilled for the purpose of enabling Medical College to seek inspection would not be contrary to the scheme of Section 10-A. In fact, Regulation 8(3)(1) provides that an opportunity shall be given to the medical college to rectify the defects. But, the proviso contemplates that certain minimum standards are to be satisfied i.e. there should not be deficiency of teaching faculty and/or residents more than 30 per cent and/or bed occupancy should not be less than 50 per cent. This prescription of standards for availing an opportunity to seek re-inspection is not ultra vires either the Regulation or Section 10-A of the Act. Hon'ble Apex Court allowed this writ petition while concluding as under : 10. On perusal of the material on record, we are of the opinion that the conclusion reached by the High Court regarding the manner in which inspection was conducted is also not correct. Bed occupancy at 45.30 per cent on random verification was the claim of Respondent No. 1 and 2. On perusal of the material on record, we are of the opinion that the conclusion reached by the High Court regarding the manner in which inspection was conducted is also not correct. Bed occupancy at 45.30 per cent on random verification was the claim of Respondent No. 1 and 2. However, the inspection report shows that out of required minimum of 300 patients, only 3 were available at 10.00 a.m. on 25th September, 2017. This Court in Kalinga has held that medical education must be taken very seriously and when an expert body certifies that the facilities in a medical college are inadequate, it is not for the Courts to interfere with the assessment, except for very cogent jurisdictional reasons such as mala fides of the inspection team, ex facie perversity in the inspection, jurisdictional error on the part of the M.C.I. Etc. The submission relating to the cyclone being a reason for the number of patients being less is not acceptable. We are in agreement with the submission made on behalf of the Appellant that the Resident Doctors are required to be in the hospital at all points of time. 27. This Court has gone through the aforementioned judgment and is of the view that same may not be of any avail to MCI in the present case for two reasons. Firstly, it deals with the college which was granted permission for establishment and was in its second year for renewal whereas petitioner No.2 College was established way back in the year 1987 and at present was concerned with continuance of its increased intake of 50 students for the academic year 2017-18 and 2018-19 which was granted in the year 2016-2017. Secondly, deficiencies noted during the inspection in case of concerned college involved therein are of very grave nature. Concerned college had requested for another inspection on the premise on the ground that deficiencies were rectified. Above all, second inspection was requested on the same day. 28. As against this, in the present case, the stand of the petitioner No.2 College is that there are no deficiencies and to prove this, the petitioner No.2- College was prepared for inspection. Even otherwise, the deficiencies pointed out by MCI in its inspection report regarding the college in question are too meager to be compared with the deficiencies of Vedanta college. 29. Even otherwise, the deficiencies pointed out by MCI in its inspection report regarding the college in question are too meager to be compared with the deficiencies of Vedanta college. 29. Apart from aforementioned decisions, learned counsel for the MCI has referred to some other judgments which has been mentioned in the list of judgments. 30. Mr. Dave, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has disputed the decision of Government of India dated 18th October, 2017 by submitting that the final decision declining the extension is a non speaking order. 31. Counsel put reliance on some of the decisions of the Apex Court. In the case of Shri Gangajali Education Soc. V/s. Union of India and others, (2017) 16 SCC 656 , it has been held in paragraph No.12 as under : 12. Having considered the rival submissions, we are of the considered opinion that the Competent Authority has once again passed an order which is cryptic, if not perverse. No attempt has been made by the Competent Authority to analyse the factors noticed by the OC in its letter dated 14.05.2017 whilst recommending confirmation of Letter of Permission in favour of the petitioner college. From the observations of the OC, it was amply clear that the deficiency noticed by the Assessing Officer was within the permissible norms. Moreover, the explanation offered by the petitioner college with regard to each of the deficiencies was acceptable. In the case on hand, neither the Hearing Committee nor the Competent Authority has made any endeavour to dislodge the said observation. We are conscious of the fact that the recommendation of OC may not be stricto sensu binding on the Competent Authority. But at the same time, it cannot be completely disregarded. We are also conscious of the fact that the Competent Authority is not expected to give elaborate reasons but is certainly bound to advert to the relevant factors noticed by the OC and record its clear finding that it was disagreeing with the same for some tangible reasons discernable from the record before it. It is also possible that the Competent Authority may have additional reasons or advert to some material which has been glossed over by the OC, but then, the decision making process would require the Competent Authority to not only advert to such matter but also record its reasons to come to a different conclusion. It is also possible that the Competent Authority may have additional reasons or advert to some material which has been glossed over by the OC, but then, the decision making process would require the Competent Authority to not only advert to such matter but also record its reasons to come to a different conclusion. In the present case, the Competent Authority has not dealt with the matter as was expected in terms of the direction issued by the Court to reconsider the matter after giving opportunity to the petitioners. 32. Mr. Dave, learned senior counsel has further relied upon another decision of the Apex Court in a case of Annaii Medical College and Hospital and Another V/s. Union of India and another, (2017) 16 SCC 557 . In this judgment, an Oversight Committee recommended approval for conditional permission. However, Competent Authority, Government of India, declined to approve the conditional permission to the petitioner college while relying upon the report of MCI. Hon'ble Apex Court disposed of this matter by holding as under : 14.1 The respondents are directed to allow the students already admitted in the petitioner College on the basis of conditional LoP for the academic session 2016-2017 to continue their studies. 14.2 MCI shall depute its Inspection Team within a period of two months to submit an assessment report regarding the overall performance and efficiency of the petitioner college and deficiencies, if any, and give time to the petitioner college to remove those deficiencies within the time specified in that regard. 14.3 The petitioner medical college shall then report its compliance and communicate the removal of deficiencies to MCI, whereafter it will be open to the MCI to verify the position and then submit its recommendation to the Ministry. The Ministry shall then take a final decision within one month of the receipt of the recommendation from the MCI. 14.4 We direct that until the final decision is taken by the Ministry and communicated to the petitioners, the Bank Guarantee offered by the petitioners in the sum of Rs. Two Crore shall not be encashed by the MCI but the petitioners shall keep the same alive. In the event the final decision of the Competent Authority of the Central Government is adverse to the petitioners, it will be open to them to take recourse to such remedies as may be permissible in law. Two Crore shall not be encashed by the MCI but the petitioners shall keep the same alive. In the event the final decision of the Competent Authority of the Central Government is adverse to the petitioners, it will be open to them to take recourse to such remedies as may be permissible in law. 14.5 We direct that the stated inspection to be conducted by the MCI will be to consider confirmation of LOP in favour of petitioner college for the academic session 2016-2017. 14.6 We further direct the respondents to treat the renewal application submitted by the petitioner college for the academic session 2017-18 as having been made for the academic session 2018-19 and process the same in accordance with law with promptitude. 33. The facts and circumstances of the aforementioned decision by the Apex Court in case of Annaii Medical College and Hospital and Another V/s. Union of India and another identical to the facts of the present case. Though, learned counsel for the MCI has relied upon decision of the Apex Court in case of Medical Council of India V/s. Vedantaa Institute of Academic Excellence Pvt. Ltd. and others. However, this judgment is distinguishable in view of discussion carried out in aforegoing paragraphs of this judgment. While saying so, this Court is conscious of the fact that issues concerning the medical education are required to be taken very seriously and scope for interference by the High Court is limited when an expert body certifies that facilities in the medical college are inadequate except for very cogent jurisdictional reasons. However, keeping in view the fact that Vedantaa Institute was a new college which was going to be established and there were as many as 25 shortfalls which were pointed out by MCI. However, situation is entirely different in the present college as its in existence since 1987. Oversight Committee has granted admission to additional 50 seats for the academic year 2016-2017 and the students are already admitted for the academic year 2017-2018 and they are undergoing their studies. 34. In view of the afore-going discussion, these petitions are disposed of by holding as under : (A) Order dated 18th October, 2017 passed by Union of India qua intake of additional 50 students for the academic year 2017-2018 is quashed and set aside. 34. In view of the afore-going discussion, these petitions are disposed of by holding as under : (A) Order dated 18th October, 2017 passed by Union of India qua intake of additional 50 students for the academic year 2017-2018 is quashed and set aside. MCI will conduct another inspection of the Institution and will submit its report to the Competent Authority Union of India and Union of India will take final decision regarding the admission already made regarding additional 50 students for the academic year 2017-2018. (B) Since the process of admissions is likely to finish in the month of August and inspection by MCI team for the academic year 2018-2019 is still pending, there will be no admissions of additional 50 students for the academic year 2018-2019. MCI will conclude the inspection of the petitioner No.2-College by December, 2018. Application made for academic session 2018-2019 shall be treated for 2019-2020. Depending upon the recommendations of MCI, Government will take final decision regarding the admissions for additional seats for academic year 2019-2020. 35. With these observations, both petitions as well as civil application stand disposed of accordingly.