JUDGMENT : Alok Aradhe, J. Mr. S.S. Naganand, learned Senior counsel for Mr. Ajith A. Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. H. Mallan Goud, learned Central Government Counsel for respondent No.1. Mr. N. Khetty, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Mr. R. Nataraj, learned Additional Advocate General for Mr. V. Shivareddy, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.3. Mr. N.K. Ramesh, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Mr. K. Diwakara, learned counsel for respondent No.5. In these writ petitions, the petitioners who are students of MBBS course of 2016-17 Batch and are currently pursuing their studies in respondent No.6- institution seek a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.2 and to declare Sambharam Institute of Medical Science and Research (hereinafter referred to as 'the College' for short) as a defunct institution as well as a writ of mandamus directing Rajeev Gandhi University of Health Sciences (hereinafter referred to as 'the University for short) to shift/relocate the petitioners herein to other institutions recognized by respondent Nos.2 and 4, offering valid degree in medical sciences/medicine within the State of Karnataka from the current academic year viz., 2018-19. The petitioners also seek a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to recognize allocation of seats for petitioners in alternative colleges/ institutions as being valid. 2. Facts giving rise for filing of these writ petitions briefly stated are that in compliance of the directions issued by this Court dated 31.03.2016 in W.P.No.12540/2016, the University on 02.05.2016 conducted an enquiry and agreed in principle to affiliate the first course of MBBS for the academic year 2016-17 subject to permission granted by the Government. The Supreme Court by an order dated 02.05.2016 passed in 'MODERN DENTAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH CENTRE AND ORS. VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.', constituted a three member Oversight Committee to oversee the functioning of Medical Council of India and also to ensure that widespread deficiencies in medical institutions across the country were removed. On 13.06.2016, the Oversight Committee decided to permit all the applicant colleges, which have not been afforded an opportunity to submit their compliance reports to the deficiencies pointed out by the Medical Council of India in the Inspection / verification reports for the academic year 2016-17, afresh to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare on or before 22.06.2016. On 13.06.2016, the Oversight Committee decided to permit all the applicant colleges, which have not been afforded an opportunity to submit their compliance reports to the deficiencies pointed out by the Medical Council of India in the Inspection / verification reports for the academic year 2016-17, afresh to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare on or before 22.06.2016. The State Government submitted the essentiality certificate prescribed in Form-2 of Medical Council of India establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 on 05.07.2016, in which it was stated that in case the college fails to create infrastructure to medical college as per Medical Council of India norms and fresh admissions are stopped by the Central Government, the State Government shall take over the responsibility of the students already admitted in the college with the permission of the Central Government. The respondent No.1 viz., Union of India on 26.09.2016 proceeded to approve intake of 150 students for the academic year 2016-17 subject to the conditions contained therein, which included rectification of various deficiencies, which were earlier found in the infrastructure of the college. Admittedly, the petitioners were admitted in the college as per their merit. 3. Admittedly, the college did not comply with the deficiencies as a result of which it was debarred from inducting students for academic sessions 2014-15, 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2018-19. The college however asserted that it has complied with the deficiencies and approached Supreme Court by filing W.P.No.850/2017 which was disposed of by the Supreme Court vide order dated 16.09.2017 directing Medical Council of India to conduct fresh instructions thereof and grant the college time to overcome the deficiencies, if any. The Medical Council of India on inspection found that the respondent No.6-College has failed to comply with the deficiencies and therefore, debarred the college from inducting students for academic 2017-18 and 2018-19. the University also debarred the college from admitting students for academic year 2017-18 and 2018-19. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners are hapless victims of glaring deficiencies in the infrastructure almost zero influx of patients in the hospital thereupon the parents of the petitioners submitted representation to the respondent. Thereupon explanation was sought on 03.08.2018 from the College to which college submitted a response on 09.08.2018. It has further been averred in the writ petition that the petitioners are forced to remain in college which are rendered defunct. Thereupon explanation was sought on 03.08.2018 from the College to which college submitted a response on 09.08.2018. It has further been averred in the writ petition that the petitioners are forced to remain in college which are rendered defunct. In the aforesaid background, the petitioners have approached this court seeking the reliefs as stated supra. 4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is a severe shortage of faculty in the college and almost nil foot-fall of patients in the attached hospital, in which the petitioners are unable to receive any clinical training. It is further submitted that no classes are being held from the start of third year and prior to two days of the inspection visits by the Medical Council of India, the College garners destitute, orphans from orphanages and elderly from the old age homes who are portrayed as patients. It is urged that the college also hires the practicing doctors to play the role of lecturers during the inspection. It is pointed out that in the latest assessment report dated 11.04.2019 of the Medical Council of India, 90% of the patients have been found to be fit and no effort was made by the inspecting team to examine the faculty members. It is also submitted that no undertaking can be furnished on behalf of the Medical Council of India to guarantee an advanced recognition in case occasion, so arises. It is also submitted that Medical Council of India has taken a stand before the Supreme Court that an institution, which has secured a letter of permission from the Central Government, can file an application seeking recognition by the Central Government only in case of two contingencies viz.,-For renewals being granted or the first batch of students being graduated from the college. Neither of the aforesaid contingencies have arisen. On the other hand, Medical Council of India has refused permission to the college to induct a fresh batch of students for a period of three consecutive years. Attention of this Court is also invited to the communication of Medical Council of India dated 30.05.2019 and it is submitted that Medical Council of India itself has found deficiencies and doubted the genuineness of indoor patients. It is also urged that the college has not challenged the inspection reports of the Medical Council of India for three consecutive years. Attention of this Court is also invited to the communication of Medical Council of India dated 30.05.2019 and it is submitted that Medical Council of India itself has found deficiencies and doubted the genuineness of indoor patients. It is also urged that the college has not challenged the inspection reports of the Medical Council of India for three consecutive years. It is further submitted that petitioners be directed to be admitted in Government Medical Colleges in the next academic session commencing from January 2020. In support of the aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on decisions of Supreme Court in 'ASHEESH PRATAP SINGH AND ORS. VS. M.SACHADEVA AND ORS.', W.P.CIVIL NOS.1001/2017, 'SARVEPALLI RADHAKRISHNAN UNIVERSITY & ANR. VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.', WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.1001 OF 2017 MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA VS. RAMA MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE, KANPUR AND ORS.', CIVIL APPEAL NO.4911 OF 2012, 'SOURABH BRALA AND ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND ORS.', W.P.(C)NO.571/2018 and 'ELECTRONICS SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. RESEARCH DESIGNS AND STANDARDS ORGANIZATION', CIVIL APPEAL NO.5946/2018. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Medical Council of India submitted that the petitioners have been admitted against the sanctioned seats and are entitled to continue in the college till the end of the course and the issue of recognition shall be considered at the time of completion of the course of the petitioners. In this connection, learned counsel has invited the attention of this Court to the affidavit sworn in by the Law Officer of the Medical Council of India, in which it is stated that the cases of the petitioners will be treated in the same manner as in the case of KCS College, Chennai where batch of students was given one time recognition, in the event of the college failing to obtain renewal permission for the fourth time and recognition at the time of completion of the course of the students. It is further submitted that each renewal is stage-wise and subsequent refusal to renew the recognitions have no bearing on the cases of the petitioners. It is also submitted that in the cases relied by learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, the lis was between the College and the Medical Council of India, and the colleges in the aforesaid decisions were closed, whereas in the instant case, the college is functional. It is also submitted that in the cases relied by learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, the lis was between the College and the Medical Council of India, and the colleges in the aforesaid decisions were closed, whereas in the instant case, the college is functional. It is also submitted that no action for closure of the college has been taken and the infrastructure and the staff of the college is sufficient for the petitioners and the college has been granted permission to apply for the next academic session. It is also submitted that the University has conducted an inspection on 06.03.2019 and the Medical Council of India agrees with the inspection report of the University. It is also urged that the instant case is not a fit case for closure of the college and the inspection reports of the Medical Council of India have not been challenged by the petitioners. Therefore, the question of transfer of students to any other institutions does not arise and the aforesaid question is premature. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in 'MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS, (1998) 6 SCC 131 ', 'K.S.BHOIR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS, (2002) AIR SC 444', 'MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA VS. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES AND OTHERS, (2004) 6 SCC 76 ', 'MICHIGAN RUBBER (INDIA) LIMITED VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS, (2012) 8 SCC 216 ', 'SATYABRATA SHAOO AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS, (2012) 8 SCC 203 ' and 'CHINTPURNI MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL AND ANR. VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS., (2018) AIR SC 3119'. 6. Learned Additional Advocate General for Respondent No.3 has submitted that in third year MBBS course, 15 seats are vacant in the Government Medical Colleges of the State of Karnataka. It is also submitted that the State Government stands by the undertaking given by it in the Essentiality Certificate and in case, this Court deems fit, the students can be granted admission subject to approval granted by the Medical Council of India. It is also submitted that in fact by a communication dated 20.06.2019, guidance was sought from the Medical Council of India in this regard. However, the aforesaid communication has failed to evoke any response. It is also submitted that in fact by a communication dated 20.06.2019, guidance was sought from the Medical Council of India in this regard. However, the aforesaid communication has failed to evoke any response. It is also submitted that in case, the students have to bee admitted to the Government Medical Colleges in third year of the MBBS course, the amount of fee may be specified. 7. Learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 has adopted the submissions made the learned counsel for Respondent No.2. Learned Counsel for Respondent-College has submitted that 149 students were admitted to the college for the academic year 2016-2017. It is further submitted that 133 students passed the first year examination and appeared in the second year MBBS examination. It is also submitted that the respondents have complied with almost all the deficiencies pointed out by the respondent No.2 and Respondent No.4 and the allegations of lack of proper infrastructure, inadequacy of teaching faculty are incorrect. It is further submitted that as per the statement of Medical Council of India, there is no impediment in students completing their MBBS course and their degrees would be recognized by Medical Council of India, as required under the provisions of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. It is also submitted that medical college run by respondent No.5 is in a district, in which no Government Medical College is situated and therefore, the State Government in public interest has furnished Essentiality Certificate. It is further submitted that before the next date of inspection, the College would comply with all the deficiencies. Attention of this court has been invited to the attendance register to show that the petitioners are attending the classes, as well as to the list of teaching faculties. In support of aforesaid submissions reliance has been placed on 'MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA VS. KALINGA INSTIUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE (KIMS), (2016) AIR SC 2294' and 'CHINTAPURN MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB, (2018) AIR SC 3119'. 8. I have considered the rival submissions and have perused the record. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of Section 10A of the of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), which reads as under: 10A. STATE OF PUNJAB, (2018) AIR SC 3119'. 8. I have considered the rival submissions and have perused the record. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of Section 10A of the of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), which reads as under: 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 persona 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 recognized medical qualification; or (ii) increase its admission capacity in any course of study or training (including a postgraduate 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 postgraduate 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. (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 tot eh 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 sub-Section (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 subsection 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 form 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. (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 of 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 specific 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. 9. (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. 9. The procedure for establishment of a new medical college is governed under the procedure prescribed under Section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 as well as the establishment of new medical colleges, opening of higher course of study and increase of admission capacity in Medical Colleges' Regulations. Section 10A of the Act confers the power to permit the establishment of the medical college of the Central Government under the Act. Section 10A read with Section 23 of the Act lays down the qualifying criteria to apply for permission to establish a medical college. One of the criteria is that person concerned should obtain an essentiality certificate as prescribed in Form-2 of the Regulations certifying that State Government/Union Territory administration had no objection for establishment of proposed medical college. The State Government is required to certify that it has decided to issue an essentiality certificate for ht establishment of a medical college with specified number of seats in public interest and such establishment is feasible. It is pertinent to note that State Government is required to notify in essentiality certificate that if an applicant fails to create an infrastructure in the medical college as per Medical Council of India norms and fresh admissions are stopped by the Central Government the State Government shall take over the responsibility of the students that are already admitted in the college with the permission of the Central Government. The Supreme Court in the case of CHINTAPURNI MEDICAL COLLEGE AND ANR. supra has held that only purpose of essentiality certificate is to enable the Central Government to take an informed decision under Section 10A of the Act about opening or establishment of a new medical college. The role of Medical Council of India in opening or establishment of a new medical college is merely recommendatory in nature. It has further been held that once the college is established its functioning and performance and even the derecognisation of its courses is controlled only by the provisions of the Act and not any other law. 10. In the instant case, the State Government issued an essentiality certificate on 05.07.2016 in favour of the college as required under the Regulations. It has further been held that once the college is established its functioning and performance and even the derecognisation of its courses is controlled only by the provisions of the Act and not any other law. 10. In the instant case, the State Government issued an essentiality certificate on 05.07.2016 in favour of the college as required under the Regulations. In the aforesaid essentiality certificate, the State Government had furnished an undertaking to take over the responsibility of the students already admitted in the college with the permission of the Central Government. On the basis of the essentiality certificate issued by the State Government, the Government of India by order dated 26.09.2019 granted permission under Section 10A of the Act to establish the college with annual intake capacity of 150 seats for the academic session 2016-17, subject to the conditions mentioned in the order. It was further provided that para 5 of the aforesaid order reads as under: The permission of the Central Government is accorded initially for a period of one year and will be renewed on yearly basis subject to the verification of the achievement of annual targets as indicated in your scheme and revalidation of performance Bank Guarantee. This process of renewal of permission will continue till such time the establishment of medical college and expansion of hospital facilities are completed and a formal recognition of the Medical College is granted. 11. Admittedly, the petitioners were admitted in the respondent No.6-College on merit. In Medical Council of India supra, the Supreme Court held that a medical student requires grueling study and that can be done only when proper facilities are provided in the medical college and the hospital attached to it has to be well equipped and the teaching faculty and doctors have to be competent enough that when a medical student comes out he is perfect in science of treatment of human beings and is not found wanting in any way. It was further held that the country does not want half baked medical professional coming out of the medical colleges when they did not have full facilities of teaching and were not exposed to the patients and their ailments during the course of their study. The compliance of the requirements under the act and the regulations framed therein has been held to be mandatory. The compliance of the requirements under the act and the regulations framed therein has been held to be mandatory. Thus, the responsibility lies on the state holders to ensure that adequate infrastructure and the facilities of teaching as well as the experience of working in hospitals where the students have exposure to the patients and their ailments is made available. 12. The Medical Council of India carried out inspection on 17.12.2017 for according permission to the next batch of students for the academic session 2017-18. The relevant extract of the aforesaid report reads as under: 5. Deficiency of the infrastructure of college and hospital-nil 6. Deficiency of clinical material: grossly inadequate (a) Bed Occupancy-17%, OPD-240 (b) Major, Minor Operations-Nil, Delivery, C/S-Nil. Only 3 deliveries in last 4 months. (c) The data from the computer in Pharmacy reveals the functioning of the hospital-In Nov 2016-total 2829 patients (OPD + IPD) were given medicines. From 1st Dec 16 to 16 Dec 2016 total 15-07 patients (OPD + IPD) were given medicines from the Pharmacy. Printouts signed by person in pharmacy, Superintendent and Dean is attached. 7. Deficiency of teaching faculty: Shortage of teaching faculty is 64.62%. 8. Deficiency of resident doctors: Shortage of resident doctors is 100%. 9. Any other remarks (a) Institute is not following the direction of the MCI/oversight committee regarding the attendance. No Biometric Data or Attendance Registers signed by Faculty/Residents/HOD were available with Dean at 10.00 a.m. Some of the Attendance Registers were available with Dean's office. Most of the Faculty are not signing it. Photocopy of the same is attached. No registers were available of Anatomy, Physi9logy, Biochemistry, Pharmacology, Dermatology, Psychiatry, Ophthalmology, Radiology and Dental Departments (Statement signed by Dean attached) There is only one Biometric machine in Hospital which is not used regularly for attendance. Data taken from it on 17th Dec showed only 27 faculty / residents had done Biometric attendance. The data is always manipulated and printed. On second day also there was hardly any patients in OPD and in wards. Deficiency page 34 of the petition para 5, 6, 7 & 8 and any other remarks 9. 13. In view of the deficiencies found out by the Medical Council of India, the college was not permitted to admit fresh students for the academic session 2017-18. On second day also there was hardly any patients in OPD and in wards. Deficiency page 34 of the petition para 5, 6, 7 & 8 and any other remarks 9. 13. In view of the deficiencies found out by the Medical Council of India, the college was not permitted to admit fresh students for the academic session 2017-18. Thereafter, another inspection was carried out on 11 & 12.11.2017 for grant of renewal of permission for third batch of 150 students for the academic session 2018-19. In the aforesaid report, it was found as under: 6. Deficiency of Infrastructure of College & Hospital. 7. Clinical material. a. Bed Occupancy-60.6% b. OPD Attendance-692 c. Major surgeries-05 & Minor surgery-23, Normal delivery-01, LSCS-01. 8. Deficiency of Teaching Faculty : Shortage of Teaching Faculty is 16% (16 out of required 100) 9. Deficiency of Resident Doctors: Shortage of Resident doctors is 10.2 (5 out of required 49). 10. UHTC & RHTC services: Infrastructure in UHTC has to be improved. 14. Thus, in view of the aforesaid deficiencies, the college once again was denied permission for induction of fresh batch of students for the academic year 2018-19. 15. On 17 & 18.12.2018 also the Medical Council of India conducted the inspection for permission to admit fresh batch of 150 students and thereafter, the college was informed vide communication dated 30.05.2019 with regard to the deficiencies, which were found as follows: 1. No orientation and Basic course workshop undergone by MEU. 2. Examination hall capacity required 250, available 180-short by 70. 3. No AV aids available in lecture Theaters. 4. Stack room not available in Library 5. Students reading room (inside) 50 against 150. 6. Internet nodes available 27 against 40 (13 less). 7. Common room areas each for boys and girls separately available 50 Sq. meter as against 150 (100 sqm. Less) 8. AC, internet & computers not available in study room in hostel. 9. Biometric devices not installed in college. 10. Bed occupancy 55% 11. No Ba, IVP, CT, histopathology & cytopathlogy (IPD)-done. 12. Gynae, OT-under maintenance. 13. One mobile 600 mA, CT Scan-not available. 14. Hostel accommodation, specialists visits, cold chain, equipment, immunization & National Health Programme not available in RHTC. 15. Facilities for delivaries not available in UHTC. 16. Deficiency of Faculty-32.47% (38/117) 17. Deficiency of Residents-48.48%" 4. 10. Bed occupancy 55% 11. No Ba, IVP, CT, histopathology & cytopathlogy (IPD)-done. 12. Gynae, OT-under maintenance. 13. One mobile 600 mA, CT Scan-not available. 14. Hostel accommodation, specialists visits, cold chain, equipment, immunization & National Health Programme not available in RHTC. 15. Facilities for delivaries not available in UHTC. 16. Deficiency of Faculty-32.47% (38/117) 17. Deficiency of Residents-48.48%" 4. Whereas the Board of Governors considered the compliance verification assessment report (11th April, 2019) alongwith the summary/observations of the member of the undergraduate Expert group appointed by the BOG and noted that the following deficiencies. 16. Therefore, once again, permission was not granted for admission of fourth batch of 150 students for the academic session 2019-20. However, the college was granted liberty to apply afresh for next academic sessions strictly as per the Act and the Regulations framed thereunder. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioners as well as Medical Council of India and the college have relied on the aforesaid inspection reports in support of the contention that the existing infrastructure and the teaching facility is adequate for the present strength of 150 students. The counsel for the college has also pointed out the attendance register as well as the fact that most of the students have passed the second year examination. However, it is pertinent here to note that the aforesaid reports pertains to inspection conducted by Medical Council of India with regard to grant of permission for admission to subsequent batches i.e., for a period from 2018-19 to 2019-2010. It is noteworthy that there is no material on record to show that existing infrastructure and the teaching staff is sufficient for the petitioners, except the report of the University in an inspection which was carried out on 06.03.2019, wherein it is stated that infrastructure was assessed and no deficiency as per Medical Council of India guidelines for 150 students was found. However, the deficiencies have been found even in the aforesaid report with regard to the teaching staff and other clinical facilities. The report of the University cannot be the sole basis for recording any finding with regard to adequacy of infrastructure and facilities to the petitioners as the competent authority in this regard is the Medical Council of India. 17. However, the deficiencies have been found even in the aforesaid report with regard to the teaching staff and other clinical facilities. The report of the University cannot be the sole basis for recording any finding with regard to adequacy of infrastructure and facilities to the petitioners as the competent authority in this regard is the Medical Council of India. 17. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention that the State Government by a communication dated 20.06.2019 had sought guidance from the Medical Council of India that the petitioners are facing difficulties on account of lack of infrastructure. However, the Medical Council of India did not respond to the aforesaid communication by the State Government. The Medical Council of India which is under a statutory obligation to ensure that proper infrastructure and facilities are provided to the students so that they gain the necessary experience to treat the patients has failed to perform its duty. It is pertinent to note that not only the parents but even State Government had approached the Medical Council of India with the grievance that the College does not have requisite infrastructure and the teaching staff. However, the Medical Council of India did not examine the aforesaid aspect of the matter. The issue whether or not the existing infrastructure and the teaching faculty and other clinical facilities are sufficient for the petitioners cannot be determined by this court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The stake holders viz., Central Government of India, Medical Council of India and the State Government are under an obligation to ensure that necessary infrastructure, teaching faculty and well equipped hospital where the petitioners get an exposure to deal with the patients is provided. The stake holders cannot shun their responsibility. 18. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention here that the decisions relied upon by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners are of no assistance to the petitioners in the fact situation of the case as in all the aforesaid cases, the college had closed down. In the instant case, such an eventuality has not arisen. The decision with regard to closure of college has to be taken by the Central Government on the basis of the recommendations made by the Medical Council of India. In the instant case, such an eventuality has not arisen. The decision with regard to closure of college has to be taken by the Central Government on the basis of the recommendations made by the Medical Council of India. Therefore, the relief as sought for by the petitioners at this point of time appears to be premature. 19. Therefore, in the fact situation of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of these writ petitions with the following directions: (i) That the MCI shall depute a team to examine the college to ascertain whether existing infrastructure, teaching faculty and other clinical facilities and the hospital has adequate number of patients insofar as it pertains to the petitioners the aforesaid team after objective assessment shall submit the report to the MCI and the MCI on the aforesaid report shall take a decision on or before 30.09.2019. In case the infrastructure and other facilities including the teaching faculty are found to be deficient, the MCI, Central Government and State Government shall take a suitable decision for transfer of the students in government medical colleges in view of the undertaking furnished in essentiality certificate by the State Government (ii) The university in addition which is an affiliating body shall also conduct a separate inspection and share its report with the MCI. (iii) The college as undertaken by it shall comply with the deficiencies within a period of three weeks from today. (iv) Based on the report which may be submitted by the team of MCI the MCI shall take suitable decision in case of petitioners. In view of the undertaking given before this Court by the MCI, the MCI in case it finds the infrastructure, facilities and the teaching faculty as well as the hospital has sufficient number of patients for the petitioners, shall take a decision to recognize the degree of the petitioners. (v) In case it is found that the facilities, infrastructure and the teaching faculty and other clinical facilities are sufficient in the report which may be submitted to the MCI, the amount of fee deposited by the petitioners for their 3rd year course shall be transmitted to the account of the college. With the aforesaid directions, the petitions are disposed of.