JUDGMENT : Milind N. Jadhav, J. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. Petitioner no. 1 is a public trust registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 and manages the Petitioner no. 2- Ayurvedic Medical College at Pusad. By the present Petition, the Petitioners have challenged order dated 19.07.2019 passed by Respondent no. 1-Union of India, inter alia, denying the Petitioner no. 2-College permission for admitting 50 undergraduate seats in the B.A.M.S. course for the academic session 2019-2020 due to certain deficiencies as stated in the order. It is the Petitioner's case that Petitioner no.2-College had been regularly granted permission by the Respondents for admitting 50 students in the B.A.M.S. under-graduate course since the year 1992-93. Petitioner no.2-College was started in the year 1992-93 and has been admitting students since then in the academic sessions as per Government Resolution dated 03.03.1992. The Petitioners' run a hospital which caters to the need of the rural population at Pusad, District Yavatmal, having its own three storied permanent building. Petitioner no.2-College is privately managed and a permanently unaided college imparting education in Ayurveda and runs a B.A.M.S. (under Graduate) course of 51/2 years duration with intake capacity of 50 students since 1992-93. Petitioner no. 2-College has also been granted permission by Central Council of Indian Medicine (in short 'CCIM') i.e. Respondent no. 2 since the academic session 1992-93 for the above course from time to time. However, this permission was a conditional permission and it was renewed/continued from time to time. Petitioner no. 2-College has also been granted permission by the Central Government-AYUSH i.e. Respondent no. 1 by letter dated 04.08.2017 for the above course. 3. In the year 2018, Petitioner no.2-College was served with an order dated 27.09.2018 passed by Respondent no. 1, whereby permission was refused to admit students for the academic session 2018-19, on the ground that there existed certain deficiencies in the College. The said permission was refused on the basis of an inspection which was conducted in the month of June-2018 and the same came to be challenged before this Court by Writ Petition No. 7672/2018. This Court by order dated 06.11.2018, granted interim relief to the Petitioners and directed that admissions given to the students would be subject to the result of the said Petition. This Court by order dated 06.11.2018, granted interim relief to the Petitioners and directed that admissions given to the students would be subject to the result of the said Petition. The Petitioners admitted 50 students in the B.A.M.S. under-graduate course for the academic session 2018-19 and each of the said student had been informed about the pendency of the Petition. On the basis of the inspection which had been conducted in the year 2018, by order dated 27.09.2018, Respondent no. 1 had directed the Petitioners to remove the then existing deficiencies by 31.12.2018. The Petitioners being aware of the same removed the deficiencies and submitted compliance report dated 28.12.2018 accordingly. 4. For the year 2019, the Petitioners were required to fill an online form prescribed by Respondent no. 2-CCIM in a specified format and the same was done in the month of January-2019. On the basis of online submissions made by the Petitioners, inspection was conducted in Petitioner no. 2-College on 12th and 13th April , 2019 by the visitation/inspection team of Respondent no. 2 i.e. CCIM. 5. Shri Dharmadhikari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submitted that Respondent no. 2 called upon the Petitioners to furnish documentary evidence pertaining to birth register of minimum 150 deliveries from 01.01.2018 to 31.12.2018, letter of appointment of honorary Anesthetist, consent letter of 369 operated patients, Operation Theater Register, material record for Panchkarma procedure from 01.01.2018 to 31.12.2018, records of Ksharsutra procedure from 01.01.2018 to 31.12.2018 and its website address etc. in detail. He submitted that since the Petitioners were already aware about the aforesaid deficiencies which were raised in the previous year (2018), the Petitioners collected the entire data and handed over the entire documentary evidence pertaining to rectification of the deficiencies to the inspection team of Respondent no. 2 on 12th and 13th April, 2019. However, on 01.07.2019, the Petitioners received a letter from Respondent no. 1 highlighting the same deficiencies once again which are reproduced thus :- i. Birth Certificates for 150 deliveries conducted from 01.01.2018 to 31.12.2018. ii. Details of Anesthesia/consent records for 369 operations conducted from 01.01.2018 to 31.12.2018. iii. Details of indented and used material records for the Panchkarma procedures conducted from 01.01.2018 to 31.12.2018. iv. Details of indented and used material records for the Ksharshutra procedures conducted from 01.01.2018 to 31.12.2018. v. Website is not available as per regulation 9(2) of RMS, 2016. vi. ii. Details of Anesthesia/consent records for 369 operations conducted from 01.01.2018 to 31.12.2018. iii. Details of indented and used material records for the Panchkarma procedures conducted from 01.01.2018 to 31.12.2018. iv. Details of indented and used material records for the Ksharshutra procedures conducted from 01.01.2018 to 31.12.2018. v. Website is not available as per regulation 9(2) of RMS, 2016. vi. Permission has been denied to the college for the academic session 2018-19, however as per CCIM assessment report college has admitted the students. Therefore, the college should explain on what basis the admission of the students has been done for the academic year 2018-19. 6. Shri Dharmadhikari, submitted that the Petitioners were given hearing by Respondent no. 1 on 03.07.2019 and certain documents were also called for at the time of hearing. The hearing was attended by the Principal of Petitioner no.2-College along with an Associate Professor at New Delhi before Respondent no. 1. The Petitioners submitted their written submissions along with documentary evidence of total 1221 pages to explain rectification of the alleged deficiencies pointed out by Respondent no. 1. On the basis of above, Petitioners were certain that Respondent no. 1 would grant permission for admitting 50 students in the under-graduate B.A.M.S. course for the academic session 2019-20. However, Respondent no. 1 issued the impugned order dated 19.07.2019 which was received on 01.08.2019 stating the non-rectification of the same six deficiencies as under :- i. Birth Certificates for 150 deliveries conducted from 01.01.2018 to 31.12.2018. ii. Details of Anesthesia consent records for 369 operations conducted from 01.01.2018 to 31.12.2018. iii. Details of indented and used material records for the Panchkarma procedures conducted from 01.01.2018 to 31.12.2018. iv. Details of indented and used material records for the Ksharshutra procedures conducted from 01.01.2018 to 31.12.2018. v. Website is not available as per regulation 9(2) of RMS, 2016. vi. Permission has been denied to the college for the academic session 2018-19, however as per CCIM assessment report college has admitted the students. Therefore, the college should explain on what basis the admission of the students has been done for the academic year 2018-19. 7. He submitted that, despite furnishing the entire data pertaining to rectification and removal of all the aforesaid six deficiencies, the impugned order mechanically reproduced the same deficiencies as stated in the letter dated 01.07.2019. The order informed the Petitioners that Petitioner no. 7. He submitted that, despite furnishing the entire data pertaining to rectification and removal of all the aforesaid six deficiencies, the impugned order mechanically reproduced the same deficiencies as stated in the letter dated 01.07.2019. The order informed the Petitioners that Petitioner no. 2-College could not be permitted to admit students in the under-graduate B.A.M.S. course for the academic session 2019-20 and it was further stated that the said deficiencies should be removed by 31.12.2019 for grant of permission to admit students for the subsequent academic year. 8. Shri Dharmadhikari submitted that the order dated 19.07.2019 was arbitrary, illegal and violated the constitutional rights of the Petitioners' in as much as, despite the Petitioners having furnished and submitted the data/explanation to the alleged deficiencies during the hearing in true letter and spirit, the impugned order reiterating the deficiencies came to be passed. He submitted that the allegations that there were six deficiencies and Petitioner no. 2-College failed to fulfill the same was patently incorrect and false on the face of record. He took us through the record furnished by Petitioner no. 2-College before Respondent no. 1 during the hearing held on 03.07.2019 in respect of each of the six deficiencies and made the following submissions:- (A) Deficiency no. 1 pertained to the Petitioners' not submitting/furnishing birth certificates of 150 deliveries. According to him, Petitioners had submitted copies of provisional certificates of birth which are in the nature of birth intimations of children born in the hospital and the said intimation is forwarded to Gram Panchayat, Nimbi which is the local authority designated for issuance of birth certificates. He submitted that Petitioner no. 2-College was not the competent authority to issue birth certificates. He submitted that the provisional certificate of births included the names of parent, time of birth of child, gender of the child, weight of child etc. and formed part of the said birth intimation record. He submitted that the entire record of 150 such provisional certificates of births/intimations were filed with Respondent no. 2 and were also presented to Respondent no. 1 at the time of hearing. But the said documents were not considered and have been made the basis to reject permission to admit students for the academic year 2019-20. (B) Deficiency no. 2 pertained to non submission of consent letters of anesthesia given to 369 patients for operations which were conducted in Petitioner no.-2-College. 1 at the time of hearing. But the said documents were not considered and have been made the basis to reject permission to admit students for the academic year 2019-20. (B) Deficiency no. 2 pertained to non submission of consent letters of anesthesia given to 369 patients for operations which were conducted in Petitioner no.-2-College. He submitted that copies of consent letters given by the patient and by the Anesthetist along with separate letters of consent taken from all such patients which are in the nature of duly filled in forms were filed with Respondent no. 2- CCIM and were also presented to Respondent no. 1. The copies of all such forms which deal with the consent given by the patients as well as their relatives and witnesses were submitted to the Inspection team as well as Respondent no. 1 during the hearing to corroborate this evidence. He submitted that Petitioner no.2-College had also supplied agreement with the Anesthetist and copy of the Operation Theater Register signed by the Anesthetist in respect of 369 patients. However, according to him, this documentary evidence which was material has not been looked into or considered at all by the Respondents. (C) Deficiency no. 3 pertained to non supply of copies of material record, stock book, purchase bills, indent book, receipt book, used material book etc. He submitted that copies of all these documents which were voluminous, were made available to the Inspection team of the Respondent no. 2-CCIM for their perusal and consideration as well as at the time of hearing before Respondent no. 1, but the same was not considered. (D) Deficiency no.4 pertained to non supply of documents and indented and used material for Khsarshutra procedure. He submitted that the Petitioners actually filed copy of the indented and used material register along with Khsarsutra Nirman Register before the Inspection team of the Respondent no. 2-CCIM as well as before Respondent no. 1 at the time of hearing, but once again the same was not considered. (E) Deficiency no. 5 pertained to non-existence of website of the Petitioner no. 2-College. He submitted that website of Petitioner no. 2-College was developed by Bidwai Technologies and website address was furnished to the Inspection team of the Respondent no. 2-CCIM as well as Respondent no. 1 at the time of hearing, but once again the same was not considered. 9. 5 pertained to non-existence of website of the Petitioner no. 2-College. He submitted that website of Petitioner no. 2-College was developed by Bidwai Technologies and website address was furnished to the Inspection team of the Respondent no. 2-CCIM as well as Respondent no. 1 at the time of hearing, but once again the same was not considered. 9. Shri Dharmadhikari, painstakingly took us through Annexure-'L' to the Petition which was the voluminous record submitted by the Petitioners in respect of rectification of the deficiencies listed in the impugned order one by one. He then referred to and relied upon the oral submission made by Petitioner no. 2-College during the hearing held on 03.07.2019 before Respondent no. 1. 10. We find that even during the hearing/oral submission on 03.07.2019, the entire database with respect to removal of the aforesaid six deficiencies was handed over to Respondent no. 1 for its consideration. He thereafter referred to and relied upon the report of Respondent no. 2-CCIM, New Delhi with respect to Minutes of 284th Meeting of its Executive Committee held on 28.05.2019 at New Delhi which is part of the record and brought to our attention that the Screening Committee of Respondent no. 2 had decided to recommend grant of conditional permission for admitting 50 students for under-graduate B.A.M.S. course for academic session 2019-20 to Petitioner no.2-College to the Government of India. On the basis of the above facts, he submitted that in fact no deficiencies ever existed and if at all, deficiencies were there, the Petitioners had cured the said deficiencies and had accordingly placed the entire record for inspection before the Respondent no. 2-CCIM and subsequently before Respondent no.1. Therefore, in view thereof, the impugned order depriving Petitioner no. 2-College from admitting students for the academic session 2019-20 on the basis of the six deficiencies listed therein deserved to be quashed and set aside with consequential directions. He submitted that the impugned order was totally unsustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case considering the record placed by the Petitioners through which he has taken us. According to him, none of the deficiencies existed and even if they had ever existed the same were cured and fulfilled. 11. Shri Aurangabadkar, learned A.S.G.I. appearing on behalf of Respondent no. 1 submitted that permission from Respondent no. According to him, none of the deficiencies existed and even if they had ever existed the same were cured and fulfilled. 11. Shri Aurangabadkar, learned A.S.G.I. appearing on behalf of Respondent no. 1 submitted that permission from Respondent no. 1 was required to be obtained by the Petitioners on a year to year basis in view of the recommendation and visitation report of Respondent no. 2-CCIM in terms of Indian Medicine Central Council (Minimum Standard Requirement of Ayurveda college and attached Hospital) Regulations, 2016, the provisions of Indian Medical Council Act, 1970 and relative regulations made therein and as approved by Ministry of AYUSH for under-graduate/post-graduate course. According to him, if any deficiencies are observed and if the College has not fulfilled the said deficiencies, permission can be refused. He submitted that minimum standard of infrastructure, teaching and training facility as specified in Section 3 of the IMCC Regulations, 2016 are required to be adhered to get conditional permission either for a period of 5 years or on a yearly basis as the case may be. According to him all such requirements of IMCC Regulations, 2016 are required to be submitted to Ministry of AYUSH and copy to IMCC for verification. He submitted that the Petitioners had derelicted in similar fashion during the last academic year 2018-19 and were required to fulfill the said deficiencies by 31.12.2018. He submitted that in view thereof, the impugned order which highlighted the existence of deficiencies in the year 2019 was therefore, required to be viewed strictly. He attempted to justify the deficiencies (mentioned supra) but could not carry it further in respect of the same, save and except that in the case of Deficiency no. 1, he submitted that the Petitioners had submitted intimation letters given to the Gram Panchayat and that they were not birth certificates for 150 deliveries conducted during the calendar year. 12. Shri Aurangabadkar submitted that, under Section 13, of the Indian Medical Central Council Act, 1970, in respect of an Institute and existing Medical College, surprise inspection was required to be undertaken by Respondent no. 2-CCIM and thereafter it was required to forward its report to Respondent no. 1 under Section 13(4) of the said Act. He submitted that Respondent no. Shri Aurangabadkar submitted that, under Section 13, of the Indian Medical Central Council Act, 1970, in respect of an Institute and existing Medical College, surprise inspection was required to be undertaken by Respondent no. 2-CCIM and thereafter it was required to forward its report to Respondent no. 1 under Section 13(4) of the said Act. He submitted that Respondent no. 2's role was crucial and important in as much as it conducted inspection of the College, about its infrastructure and academic faculty and the entire set up as per minimum standard of infrastructure for education of under-graduate B.A.M.S. courses and such inspection was conducted in a surprise manner to get the real picture of the existing infrastructure. He submitted that Chapter II-A, Section 13A(2) of IMCC Act, 1970 provided for duties and responsibility of Respondent no. 2-CCIM which is a recommendatory authority for submission of any scheme to the Central Government and it is entrusted with power to give hearing and submit its recommendation to the Central Government. He submitted that minimum standard of requirements are mandatory in nature and are required to be maintained by each and every College seeking permission for providing quality medical education. He submitted that the Petitioners had failed to comply with minimum requirements in respect of six deficiencies which were highlighted in the impugned order and therefore, the Petitioners should not be permitted to admit students in its College unless and until they complied with the said requirements. He submitted that since deficiencies were not cured and the impugned order allowed the Petitioners to correct the deficiencies until 31.12.2019, no permission whatsoever could be granted to the Petitioners in respect of admitting students in the current academic year 2019-20. He submitted that the impugned order was a speaking order, highlighting the six deficiencies which were not fulfilled and which were material in nature and supported the passing of the impugned order. He submitted that the impugned order came to be passed after the visitation team of Respondent no. 2-CCIM carried out its inspection on 12th and 13th April, 2019 and thus in view thereof, since the Petitioners failed to provide correct and proper information to maintain the minimum standard, decision taken in the impugned order was correct. He submitted that the impugned order came to be passed after the visitation team of Respondent no. 2-CCIM carried out its inspection on 12th and 13th April, 2019 and thus in view thereof, since the Petitioners failed to provide correct and proper information to maintain the minimum standard, decision taken in the impugned order was correct. According to him, the Petitioners miserably failed to remove the deficiencies as highlighted in the impugned order and as such they were not entitled for grant of any relief. He submitted that the Petitioners had merely filed various documents alongwith the Petition and rather than that, they ought to have complied with the deficiencies. He submitted that the impugned order was correctly passed against the Petitioners. 13. Shri Aurangabadkar placed on record Notification dated 7 th November, 2016 issued by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Clause (j) of Section 36 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 and the Indian Medicine Central Council (Minimum Standard Requirements of Ayurveda Colleges and attached Hospitals) Regulation, 2012. He stressed upon Clause (3) of the said Notification, which reads thus: "3. He stressed upon Clause (3) of the said Notification, which reads thus: "3. Requirements of Minimum Standard to grant of permission- 1 (a) The Ayurveda colleges established under Section 13A and existing under section 13C of the Act and their attached hospitals shall fulfill the requirements of minimum standard for infrastructure and teaching and training facilities referred to in the regulations 4 to 11 upto the 31 st December of every year for consideration of grant of permissions for undertaking admissions in the coming academic session; (b) the Central Council shall visit the college suo moto three months before the expiry of permission; (c) the proforma of visit as prescribed by the Central Council on its website shall be filled online by the colleges and visitors respectively followed by submission of a hard copy of the same as per visitors guidelines issued by the Central Council from time to time; (d) the videography and photography of staff and infrastructure during the visit shall be made by the visitors and submitted along with detailed report and observations to the Central Council; (e) after submission of online detailed report and observations by the visitors to the Central Council, the Central Council shall submit its recommendation along with detailed report to the Central Government within a period of one month from the submission of report by the visitors; (f) the Central Council shall certify that teaching faculty present in the college is not working at any other place; (g) the position prevailed on the date of visit to assess the fulfillment of requirements as specified in these regulations except sub-regulation (2) of regulation 7 shall be taken into consideration for grant of conditional permission or permission for a period of five years to the colleges. He submitted that the concerned Ayurveda College is required to place on record and furnish position that prevailed on the date of visit in order to assess the fulfillment of requirements, as specified in the Regulations for the purpose of taking into consideration grant of conditional permission or permission for a period of five years to the said college. He stressed that on the date of visitation i.e. on 12th April, 2019, the position that prevailed in respect of deficiencies of Petitioner no.2 - College had been assessed correctly by the visitation Team of Respondent no.2 - CCIM. He stressed that on the date of visitation i.e. on 12th April, 2019, the position that prevailed in respect of deficiencies of Petitioner no.2 - College had been assessed correctly by the visitation Team of Respondent no.2 - CCIM. He also brought to our notice Clause (7) of the above Notification, which relates to specific requirements of the Teaching Hospital and, more specifically, emphasized on Clause (7)(3) (i) which reads thus: "7(3). . . . . . (i) The College and hospital shall maintain the web based computarised central registration system for maintaining the records of patients in Out-Patient Department and In-Patient Department. The college shall also maintain the Department-wise Out-Patient Department and In-Patient Department records, case papers of Out-Patient Department and In-Patient Department patients, laboratory and radiological investigation reports, medicines dispensing register, diet register for In Patient Department patients, duty roster of hospital staff, birth and death certificates etc. so as to substantiate the claim of genuine functional Ayurveda hospital fulfilling the norms as specified in the sub-regulation (2) of regulation 7." Finally, he relied upon Clause 12 of the Notification, which stated that any process of grant or denial of permission to Ayurveda Colleges for taking admissions in the Ayurveda colleges shall be completed by the 31st July of each academic session and the cut-offdate for admission in Ayurveda colleges shall be 30th September of each academic session. He submitted that in view of the above provisions and the findings of deficiencies stated in the impugned order by Respondent no.1, Petitioner no.2 - College did not deserve to be granted any permission for enrollment of students for the academic session 2019- 20. He submitted that if the Petitioner no.2-College was desirous, it could remove the deficiencies by 31st December 2019 and apply for fresh sanction thereafter for the subsequent academic year. 14. Shri Aurangabadkar winded up his submissions by relying upon the following cases in order to support the proposition that the impugned order was correctly passed. (i) W. P. (C) No. 7634/2010, Acharya Gyan Ayurved College Vs. Department of AYUSH and others, decided on 30.11.2010 by High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. (ii) Special Leave Petitioner (Civil) No. 31892 of 2012 Ayurved Shastra Seva Mandal and another Vs. Union of India and others, decided on 06.03.2013 by Hon'ble Apex Court. (iii) Medical Council of India Vs. Department of AYUSH and others, decided on 30.11.2010 by High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. (ii) Special Leave Petitioner (Civil) No. 31892 of 2012 Ayurved Shastra Seva Mandal and another Vs. Union of India and others, decided on 06.03.2013 by Hon'ble Apex Court. (iii) Medical Council of India Vs. Kalinga Institute of Medical Science (KIMS) and others, (2016) AIR SC 2294. (iv) Medical Council of India Vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, (2004) AIR SC 2603 15. In the case of Acharya Gyan Ayurved College (cited supra), he referred to and relied upon paragraph no. 9 of the said judgment. The case therein was that the inspection carried out by the Central Government team-CCIM was itself challenged as being illegal. Such is not the case in the present case. Paragraph no. 9 which he relied upon, reads thus :- "9. In the present case the inspection by the Central Government was prior to the first order dated 20th September, 2010 of refusal which was challenged in the earlier writ petition aforesaid. The petitioner at the time of disposal of the earlier writ petition did not contend that the findings on the basis of the inspection by the Central Government were not to be considered or that the said inspection was illegal. The petitioner was rather satisfied that an opportunity of being heard was given with respect to the findings based on the inspection by the Central Government's team. In my view, the petitioner in this second round of litigation, after availing of the hearing with respect to the said inspection is not entitled to contend that the said inspection itself was illegal. No such right was reserved by the petitioner to itself at the time of disposal of the earlier writ petition. Besides the aforesaid, as per the Act and the Regulations, the decision to grant the permission or to not grant the permission is to be of the Central Government. Section 13-A(5) (supra) does not require the Central Government to take a decision only by considering the recommendations of the CCIM; the same expressly permits the Central Government to take the decision "after obtaining, where necessary, such other particulars as may be considered necessary by it from the person or Medical College concerned and having regard to the factors referred to in Sub-section (8)". In my opinion, obtaining of "particulars as may be considered necessary" would include obtaining such particulars by carrying out its own inspection. The said words cannot be given a narrow interpretation so as to confine the scope thereof to obtaining information only in writing from the College. Moreover, by reference to Sub-section (8) which lays down the parameters to which the CCIM is to have regard, the Central Government has been empowered to consider the matter qua each and every parameter. The Central Government cannot be said to be a slave to the inspection by the CCIM. CCIM under the Act is merely a recommendatory body and a recommendatory body can never be deemed to deprive the authority vested with the power to take decision from exercising such power to the hilt. There is nothing whatsoever in the Act to show that the Central Government in which the power to take the decision is vested is deprived from making any enquiry or investigation as it may deem necessary for the purpose of taking the said decision." Shri Aurangabadkar drew our attention to the provisions of Section 13-A, which lays down the procedure applicable for seeking permission to admit students by Medical Colleges. We find that the above judgment will not help the Respondents' case in as much as the facts of the said case were completely different from the present case as can be seen from the paragraph reproduced herein supra. In the instant case, the power of CCIM or the Central Government has not been questioned by the Petitioners. On the contrary, in the present case, CCIM has recommended grant of conditional permission to the Petitioner no.2-College on 30.05.2019 on fulfillment of the deficiencies as stated in the said recommendation order. Therefore, this case will not be of any assistance to the Respondents. 16. While referring to the case of Ayurved Shastra Seva Mandal case (cited supra), Shri Aurangabadkar submitted that the said case referred to refusal of permission for B.A.M.S./post-graduate course for the academic year 2011-12 therein on account of various deficiencies relating to infrastructure and teaching staff. He referred to Regulation 5(1)(d) of the Indian Medicine Central Council (Permission to Existing Medical Colleges) Regulations, 2006 and sought to argue minimum requirement standard. However, the facts of the said case are completely different and nowhere close to the facts of the present case. He referred to Regulation 5(1)(d) of the Indian Medicine Central Council (Permission to Existing Medical Colleges) Regulations, 2006 and sought to argue minimum requirement standard. However, the facts of the said case are completely different and nowhere close to the facts of the present case. He submitted that in the said case, Hon'ble Apex Court had refused to judge as to whether any particular institution fulfilled the necessary criteria for its eligibility and that it was only for the experts to judge the same. He referred to paragraph no. 14, which reads as thus :- "14. It is not for us to judge as to whether a particular Institution fulfilled the necessary criteria for being eligible to conduct classes in the concerned discipline or not. That is for the experts to judge and according to the experts the Institutions were not geared to conduct classes in respect of the year 2011-12. It is also impractical to consider the proposal of the colleges of providing extra classes to the new entrants to bring them upto the level of those who have completed the major part of the course for the first year." We find that the proposition expressed in paragraph no. 14 actually supports the Petitioners' case because of the subsequent recommendation granted by Respondent no. 2-CCIM to the Petitioner no. 2-College for admitting students in the under-graduate B.A.M.S. course for the academic session 2019-20 and the entire recommendation speaks in favour of Petitioner no. 2-College. Thus, the above case will be of no assistance to the Respondents. 17. While referring to the case of Medical Council of India Vs. Kalinga Institure of Medical Science case (cited supra), Shri Aurangabadkar sought to argue the sordid saga of admissions to Medical Colleges which was the subject matter of the case before the Hon'ble Apex Court. He referred to paragraph no. 23 which reads as thus :- "23. A perusal of the decision of the High Court clearly indicates that it considered the latest report of the Inspection Team as if it was hearing an appeal against the report. He referred to paragraph no. 23 which reads as thus :- "23. A perusal of the decision of the High Court clearly indicates that it considered the latest report of the Inspection Team as if it was hearing an appeal against the report. In doing so, the High Court went into great details on issues relating to the number of teaching beds in the hospital, the limitations in the OPD Department, the number of units available in the subjects of General Medicine, Pediatrics etc., bed occupancy, number of Caesarean sections, discrepancy in data of major and minor operations, computerization in the institution, number of patients in the ICU, number of static X-ray machines, deficiency of examination halls, lecture theatres, library, students hostel, interns hostel, playground etc. etc. Surely, this was not within the domain of the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution." He submitted that as observed in the above paragraph by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it was not within the domain of the High Courts in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to examine each and every detail relating to infrastructure, various limitations etc. as stated and thus the High Court would be in error if it examines the same in the instant case. Fortunately for us, we find that the trouble of examining the voluminous data has already been done by the Respondent no. 2- CCIM and resultantly it has recommended grant of conditional permission to Petitioner no. 2-College for the academic session 2019- 20 which needs to be taken into account. Perusal of the said recommendation report in terms of letter dated 30.05.2019 addressed by Respondent no. 2-CCIM to the Respondent no. 1 settles the issue in favour of the Petitioners. 18. In the reported case of Medical Council of India Vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Science (cited supra), there were serious disputes between the parties as to what were the requirements to be fulfilled for getting permission or whether majority of the requirements were already fulfilled or whether the primary condition was required to be fulfilled. Shri Aurangabadkar referred to and relied upon paragraph nos. 12 to 14 of the said judgment to canvass that steps postulated under Section 10 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 which were required to be fulfilled in toto. Shri Aurangabadkar referred to and relied upon paragraph nos. 12 to 14 of the said judgment to canvass that steps postulated under Section 10 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 which were required to be fulfilled in toto. However, this would be of academic interest because the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the said case arose out of interim orders passed by the High Court and observed that the High Courts should be very cautious in issuing interim orders in such matters. Since, the said case was disposed of with the above observations, it may not reflect on the facts and circumstances of the present case. 19. Shri N. C. Phadnis, learned counsel appearing for Respondent no.2 - CCIM, placed on record a copy of judgment dated 29th October 2018 passed by the Apex Court in the case of Medical Council of India Vs. The Chairman, S.R. Educational and Charitable Trust and anr., (2018) 14 Scale 614. He stressed that the Regulations were binding and have a mandatory effect in terms of their compliance and as such, any dereliction and non-compliance of the Regulations, is required to be adhered very strictly. He brought to our attention the contents of paragraph no. 23 of the said judgment and laid emphasis on the words, "half baked medical professional to come out of the medical colleges". Paragraphs no. 23 reads thus:- "(23) In Medical Council of India Vs. State of Karnataka, (1998) 6 SCC 131 the Court observed that the country does not want a half-baked medical professional to come out of the medical colleges. The college should be well equipped with faculty and competent doctors. The Court has observed: "A medical student requires grueling study and that can be done only if proper facilities are available in a medical college and the hospital attached to it has to be well equipped and the teaching faculty and doctors has to be competent enough that when a medical student comes out, he is perfect in the science of treatment of human beings and is not found wanting in any way. The country does not want half-baked medical professionals coming out of medical colleges when they did not have full facilities of teachings and were not exposed to the patients and their ailments during the course of their study..." The Court has further observed that the regulations of the MCI are binding and mandatory. The country does not want half-baked medical professionals coming out of medical colleges when they did not have full facilities of teachings and were not exposed to the patients and their ailments during the course of their study..." The Court has further observed that the regulations of the MCI are binding and mandatory. There cannot be any contrary State enactment. The said view was affirmed by this Court in Dr. Preeti Srivastava v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., (1999) 7 SCC 120 ." The above paragraph, as quoted from the judgment passed in the case of Medical Council Vs. The State of Karnataka, (1998) 6 SCC 131 was in the context of availability of proper facilities in a Medical College and the Hospital attached to it, its equipments, teaching faculty and doctors. However, such is not the case herein, where the comprehensive report of Respondent no. 2-CCIM dated 30th May 2019, inter alia, recommending grant of conditional permission to Petitioner no.2-College highlights the details of teaching faculty, staff requirements, facilities, etc in Petitioner no.2 - College. We are conscious of the fact that the observations made in the above paragraphs under reference, are required to be taken seriously in a given case. He stressed that Regulations passed under the Indian Medical Council Act have a binding effect with respect to availability of infrastructure and other facilities for the purpose of recognition required to be given to a particular college after fulfillment of all conditions, which are apparent from the provisions contained in the Regulations. However, the facts of the case in hand differ, as observed by us supra. Ms. Tajwar Khan, learned A.G.P. appearing for Respondent no. 3 and 5, Shri V. P. Panpalia, appearing for Respondent no. 4 and Shri N.S. Khubalkar, appearing for Respondent no 6 supported the submission made by the learned A.S.G.I. on behalf of Respondent No. 1. 20. We have gone through the record in respect of the present case with the assistance of learned counsels appearing for the parties. We have also gone through the record furnished by the Petitioners in respect of removal of deficiencies highlighted by the visitation team of Respondent no. 2-CCIM on 12th and 13th April 2019. We find that the Petitioners had furnished the record in its entirety to the visitation team of Respondent no. 2-CCIM. On the basis of the said data, Respondent no. 2-CCIM on 12th and 13th April 2019. We find that the Petitioners had furnished the record in its entirety to the visitation team of Respondent no. 2-CCIM. On the basis of the said data, Respondent no. 2-CCIM prepared an assessment report for the year 2019-20 in respect of Petitioner no. 2-College which is appended to the Petition. In the said report, Respondent no. 2-CCIM has in fact recommended to the Government of India, grant of conditional permission to Petitioner no.2-College for admission in the undergraduate B.A.M.S. course for 50 seats for the academic session 2019- 20. The said report is in detail and save and except one item no. 26 (operation clause 8.2 of overall assessment by Council) referring to table 7.1, the entire report is satisfactory. The said report speaks about the state of affairs in Petitioner no. 2-College and we have no reason to disbelieve the same. The said report is a detailed report which takes into account the entire infrastructure of the College, details of teaching staff, Hospital Infrastructure, equipments and instruments for operation, entire functioning of the Petitioner no. 2- College and on the basis of the same recommendation has been forwarded to the Central Government by the Respondent no. 2-CCIM, which is the statutory recommendatory authority. 21. We have perused the entire record and we find that the impugned order passed on 19.07.2019 was preceded by hearing held by Respondent no. 1 on 03.07.2019. On this date, while recording the oral submissions of Petitioner no. 2-College, the College had submitted the entire data with respect to fulfillment of the deficiencies to Respondent no. 1. The same set of data is also reflected in the recommendation made by Respondent no. 2-CCIM to Respondent no.1 on 30.05.2019 for granting conditional permission for admission in the under-graduate B.A.M.S. course with 50 seats for the academic session 2019-20 to Petitioner no. 2-College. It is interesting to note that the said recommendation mentions none of the deficiencies which are highlighted in paragraph no. 5 of the impugned order, which is the subject matter of the petition. Further, in the said recommendation, the mean availability of general and essential equipments/instruments in Petitioner no.2-College was stated to be 98.73%. As observed by us, the said recommendation prepared by Respondent no. 5 of the impugned order, which is the subject matter of the petition. Further, in the said recommendation, the mean availability of general and essential equipments/instruments in Petitioner no.2-College was stated to be 98.73%. As observed by us, the said recommendation prepared by Respondent no. 2-CCIM in the form of a detailed report clearly shows that Petitioner no.2-College had all the requisite materials and had fulfilled all deficiencies. We find that Respondent no. 1 did not consider the data furnished by Petitioner no. 2-College at the time of oral hearing on 03.07.2019 as well as during the visitation/inspection by Respondent no. 2's team on 12th and 13th April, 2019. We find that Petitioner no.2-College was careful in ensuring that the deficiencies were removed because the same had existed in the previous year. The Petitioners placed on record summary of the entire 1700 odd pages of documentary evidence presented before the CCIM's inspection team and the hearing conducted by Respondent no. 1 in that order (refer Annexure-'O' to the Petition). The entire material also has been annexed to the Petition by the Petitioners at Annexure-'L'. We therefore disagree with the submissions made by Shri Aurangabadkar that the order impugned in the Petition was a speaking order and it related to serious deficiencies which were never cured by Petitioner no. 2- College. We find that Petitioners had submitted the entire material information as and when required or called for, specially in view of the fact that the Petitioners had faced the same fate during the academic session 2018-19. Hence, we conclude that the impugned order is arbitrary and high-handed and therefore, deserves to be set aside in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In view of the above, we pass the following order :- ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 19/07/2019 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the respondent no.1 for its fresh consideration in accordance with the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, the Indian Medicine Central Council (Requirements of Minimum Standard for undergraduate Ayurveda Colleges and attached Hospitals) Regulations, 2016 and all other applicable rules, circulars and notifications. The matter is remanded back to the respondent no.1 for its fresh consideration in accordance with the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, the Indian Medicine Central Council (Requirements of Minimum Standard for undergraduate Ayurveda Colleges and attached Hospitals) Regulations, 2016 and all other applicable rules, circulars and notifications. (iii) While taking the final decision, the respondent no.1shall consider appropriately the visitation report submitted to it by the Central Council of Indian Medicine which was based upon its suomotu visit dated 12th and 13th April, 2019, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. (iv) The decision shall be taken within two months from the date of the order. (v) The petitioners are permitted to make admissions of 50 students in B.A.M.S. Course during the current academic session of 2019-2020. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.