JUDGMENT : Jaspreet Singh, J. The petitioner-institution by means of the instant writ petition raises a challenge to the order dated 22.07.2019 passed by the respondent no. 2 by means of which the petitioner-institution has been denied the permission to run its B.A.M.S. course with 100 seats for the Academic year 2019-20. Background Facts:- 2. The formal education relating to Ayurved a stream of medical study in India is governed by the provisions of the Indian Medical Central Council Act, 1970, "hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1970". The Act of 1970 more specifically in Chapter II has envisaged a constitution of a Central Council by the Central Government for the purposes of the Act and it is this Council which is the apex body for regulating Ayurved and Homeopathy (More popularly known as Ayush Courses). 3. Chapter II-A deals with the powers of the Council to recommend to the Central Government for grant of permission for establishment of new Medical Colleges, new courses of studies amongst others. Section 13-A of the aforesaid Act provides that no person shall establish a Medical College or no Medical College shall open a new or higher course of studies nor increase its admission capacity except with the previous permission of the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 4. Sub Section 2 of Section 13-A envisages that every person or Medical College shall for the purposes of obtaining permission under Sub Section 1 shall submit to the Central Government a Scheme in accordance with the provisions of Sub Section 3 and the Central Government shall refer the Scheme to the Central Council for its recommendation. Sub Section 4 provides that on receipt of a Scheme from the Central Government, the Central Council may obtain such other particulars as it may consider necessary from the person or the Medical College concerned and thereafter if it finds that the Scheme is defective and does not contain necessary particulars give a reasonable opportunity to the person or the Medical College concerned for making a written representation and it shall be open to such person or Medical College to rectify the defects, if any, noticed by the Central Council. The Central Council may apart from calling for the necessary particulars also has the power to consider the Scheme having regard to the factors as referred in Sub Section 8 and then submit to the Central Government together with its recommendations thereon within a period of 6 months from the date a receipt of the reference from the Central Government. 5. Once the Central Government receives the Scheme and the recommendations from the Central Council as envisaged under Sub Section 4 then it may after obtaining such particulars as it may consider necessary from the person or the Medical College concerned and having regard to other factors as mentioned in Sub Section 8 will either approve the Scheme with such conditions as it may deem necessary or disapprove the Scheme and any such approval shall constitute as a permission under Sub Section 1. A proviso has been appended to Sub Section 5 of Section 13-A that no Scheme shall be disapproved by the Central Government except after giving the person or the Medical College concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 6. In the exercise of powers conferred by Clause (j) of Section 36 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, the Central Government has notified the Regulations on the 7th November, 2016 known as "Indian Medicine Central Council (requirements of minimum standards for under Graduate Ayurved Colleges and attached hospitals) Regulations, 2016. Regulation 3 provides the requirement of minimum standard for the grant of permission. The minimum requirements as provided under Regulation 3 confers a Mandate that the Central Council shall visit the College suo moto three months before the expiry of the permission. Sub Regulation 2 of Regulation 3 provides for requirements of minimum standard to grant of permission for a period of 5 years whereas sub Regulation 3 provides for requirements of minimum standards to grant a conditional permission for one year. Broadly speaking, the requirements under the Regulations relate to the requirements of teaching staff, non-teaching staff, technical staff, equipments and other infrastructural facilities including requirements for land, minimum constructed areas, requirements for out patient departments for various streams, biometric attendance, admissions and further schedules have been annexed detailing such requirements. 7. That the respondent no. Broadly speaking, the requirements under the Regulations relate to the requirements of teaching staff, non-teaching staff, technical staff, equipments and other infrastructural facilities including requirements for land, minimum constructed areas, requirements for out patient departments for various streams, biometric attendance, admissions and further schedules have been annexed detailing such requirements. 7. That the respondent no. 1 while exercising its powers under Section 13-A of the Act of 1970 initially by means of an order dated 25.09.2017 had granted permission to the petitioner-institution for running a B.A.M.S. course for 100 seats for the Academic Session 2017-18. A copy of the said permission has been brought on record as Annexure No. 4. The aforesaid permission also clearly indicates in paras 2, 3 and 5 that the College may take admissions for 100 seats for the Academic Session 2017-18 subject to the conditions that the requirements to be complied by the College positively by the 31st December, 2017 to get the conditional permission for the Academic Session 2018-19. It also provided that the College Administration will ensure that sufficient qualified teachers and non-teaching staff in the colleges and requisite staff in the hospitals as per the relevant Central Council of Indian Medicine Regulations are in place before the admission of the first batch of students in the professional B.A.M.S. course is made under intimation to the Central Government and Central Council of Indian Medicine (hereinafter referred to as C.C.I.M.). 8. It has been stated that the C.C.I.M. conducted its inspection on 06.02.2018 for the Academic Year 2018-19 and again re-visited the College on 25/26 May, 2018 to re-assess the available facilities. During the visit certain deficiencies were pointed out and in pursuance thereof a hearing notice dated 14.09.2018 was issued to the petitioner-institution. The petitioner-institution submitted its reply along with the supporting documents evidencing their submissions and to indicate that there was no deficiency as noticed and further considering the reply of the petitioner-institution, the respondent no. 2 by means of the order dated 05.10.2018 granted permission for 60 seats of B.A.M.S. course for the Academic Year 2018-19 subject to conditions that the College shall fulfill the requirements by 31.12.2018. A copy of the permission granted for the Academic Year 2018-19 has been annexed as Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition. 2 by means of the order dated 05.10.2018 granted permission for 60 seats of B.A.M.S. course for the Academic Year 2018-19 subject to conditions that the College shall fulfill the requirements by 31.12.2018. A copy of the permission granted for the Academic Year 2018-19 has been annexed as Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition. It has been stated that the petitioner complied with the aforesaid conditions and sent its compliance report to the Central Council before 31.12.2018. Current Controversy:- 9. With the advent of the Academic Year 2019-20, the C.C.I.M. conducted a suo moto inspection on 08/09 March, 2019 to re-assess the facilities available both in respect of teaching and practical and infrastructural facilities and as well as to verify the compliance report submitted by the petitioner-institution and to furnish its report and recommendation to the Central Government to enable the petitioner-institution to have its permission for the Academic Year 2019-20. 10. It is the case of the petitioner that during the visit no deficiency was pointed out to the petitioner-institution by the assessors, however, they were dismayed when the petitioner-institution received a hearing notice dated 27.06.2019 issued by the respondent no. 2 detailing certain deficiencies as found in the petitioner-institution on the basis of the inspection carried out by the members of the C.C.I.M. 11. In furtherance of the aforesaid hearing notice, the petitioner-institution was required to appear before the Hearing Committee of the Ministry of Ayush on 03.07.2019. The petitioner-institution appeared before the Hearing Committee and submitted its written reply along with all its supporting documents to satisfy and indicate that there was no actual deficiency as noticed by the assessors. It has been stated that the reply of the petitioner-institution was duly recorded by the Hearing Committee in the minutes of the meeting so prepared, however, to the utter shock they received the copy of the impugned order dated 22.07.2019 which was received by the petitioner-institution on 30.07.2019 by means of which the permission of the petitioner-institution for taking admission in the B.A.M.S. course with 100 seats for the Academic Year 2019-20 has been denied. It is this order which has been impugned in the instant writ petition. Submissions on behalf of the petitioner:- 12. Dr. It is this order which has been impugned in the instant writ petition. Submissions on behalf of the petitioner:- 12. Dr. L.P. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-institution has raised the following submissions:- (i) That the impugned order dated 22.07.2019 has been passed in violation of Section 13-A (4) (a) of the Act of 1970 and it has been submitted that no opportunity of hearing was granted by the Central Council to the petitioner-Institution for rectifying the deficiency before communicating the deficiency to the Central Government. (ii) The other limb of the submission is that there was no deficiency in the petitioner-institution and that the documents and evidences which were produced before the Hearing Committee have not been scrutinized or seen in the correct perspective rather they have been ignored while passing the impugned order dated 22.07.2019. (iii) That the deficiencies as pointed out while issuing the hearing notice related to different aspect of the matter, however, while passing the impugned order, the respondent no. 2 has improved and taken grounds which do not bear or relate to the hearing notice and accordingly the respondent no. 2 has exceeded its jurisdiction and has condemned the petitioner-institution for certain aspects for which they were not called upon to answer. Elaborating his submissions, Sri Mishra has submitted that if at all the respondent no. 2 wanted to further clarify the matter it ought to have put the petitioner-institution to notice to enable the petitioner-institution to have brought relevant materials in respect of such queries on record to satisfy the respondent no. 2 to the extent that the petitioner-institution complied with all the requirements and the deficiencies as noticed were merely virtual and artificial and actually did not exist. 13. Accordingly, it is being prayed that the impugned order is bad in the eyes of law and considering the fact that the registration for counselling for the Academic Year 2019-20 has commenced, it has been prayed that the petitioner-institution may be granted the permission to admit the students previously for the Academic Year 2019-20 and permitting the petitioner-institution to rectify and cure all the deficiencies by 31st December, 2019. It has also been submitted that in similar cases this Court has granted indulgence to certain institutions and accordingly the petitioner is also entitled to the said parity. Submission on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2:- 14. It has also been submitted that in similar cases this Court has granted indulgence to certain institutions and accordingly the petitioner is also entitled to the said parity. Submission on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2:- 14. Sri Savitra Vardhan Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2 has refuted the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that the petitioners were granted ample opportunity of hearing. It has been submitted that the hearing notice which is issued to the petitioner-institution clearly stated the date, time and place of the hearing. It also clearly indicated that each party must produce all the relevant valid documents/records/proof in original to substantiate their claims against all deficiencies/short comings as indicated in the notice. 15. The hearing notice was categorical in so far as the requirements which the petitioner-institution is required to carry and submit for verification before the Hearing Committee which is elucidated in para 5 of the hearing notice. It has also been urged that Clause 5 (v) also contain a residual clause that any other supporting document related to the availability of the other deficiencies may also be brought on. Thus, the petitioner-institution was well aware of the requirement which it had to carry and accordingly it is not open for the petitioner-institution to suggest that the Hearing Committee has made observations and found the deficiencies to exist and that the observations are beyond the deficiencies pointed out in the hearing notice. 16. It has also been submitted that Section 13-A of the Act of 1970 has conferred the power of the inspection on the C.C.I.M. It is the C.C.I.M. who may call upon the institution to get certain clarifications as required by the C.C.I.M. to enable it to formulate its recommendations in a more complete fashion to be submitted before the Central Government. It is actually the Central Government who after receiving the recommendations from the Central Council may take an action of either approving the Scheme or the permission as the case may be or may call upon the party concerned to submit additional facts relating the Central Government to satisfy itself that the deficiencies as noticed by the C.C.I.M. are well addressed and are cured by the institutions before the grant of permission. 17. 17. It has been elaborated that since the hearing notice was given to the petitioner-institution who in pursuance thereto submitted their written submissions along with the necessary documents and also was afforded a personal hearing. Thus, it is not open for the petitioner to suggest that there is any violation of Section 13-A(4) (a) of the Act of 1970. 18. It has further been submitted by Sri Savitra Vardhan Singh, that the C.C.I.M. is an expert body which makes the inspections and there are large number of the decisions of the Apex Court wherein the importance of the inspections made by the C.C.I.M. has been upheld. Coupled with the fact that unless and until all the requirements as provided and required under the regulation are met and the institution is compliant, no permission may be given and moreover even if there is a permission for one year it does not mean that the institution is required to have the permission for the next year unless it satisfies the Central Government of being compliant of the requirements. There is no requirement of misplaced sympathies with either the students or the institutions as they have a detrimental effect as noticed by the Apex Court and, therefore, such orders or reliefs as prayed by petitioner may not be granted by the Court. Discussion:- 19. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length and also perused the records. 20. The petitioner has brought on record the impugned order as Annexure No. 1 and from the perusal of the same it indicates that 9 deficiencies were pointed out. The impugned order, notices, the observations of the Hearing Committee based on the submissions made by the College representative during the hearing and thereafter it has recorded its conclusion that the deficiencies as noticed by the C.C.I.M. do subsist and the explanation was not found favourable. Consequently, the permission for the Academic Year 2019-20 has been denied. 21. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 by filing their counter affidavit has brought on record the observations of the Hearing Committee relating to the petitioner-institution. Apparently, the same was not provided to the petitioner. However, while filing the same with the counter affidavit, the Court is in a position to scrutinize the same. 21. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 by filing their counter affidavit has brought on record the observations of the Hearing Committee relating to the petitioner-institution. Apparently, the same was not provided to the petitioner. However, while filing the same with the counter affidavit, the Court is in a position to scrutinize the same. The petitioners have filed a supplementary affidavit dated 20th September, 2019 and it has been pleaded that the said supplementary affidavit may be treated as the rejoinder affidavit in reply to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2. 22. The petitioners have taken pains to make a chart both in the writ petition as well as in their supplementary affidavit which is treated as the rejoinder affidavit wherein the charge of deficiency has been mentioned and the reply of the petitioner-institution thereto. Since the observations of the Hearing Committee was not before the petitioner-institution, therefore, it could not reply to the same adequately. However, once the same has been brought on record by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 with their counter affidavit, the petitioner has made its submissions in reply thereto in paragraph 10 of their supplementary affidavit. 23. The primary deficiency noticed by the C.C.I.M. related to the fact that there are 21 eligible teachers available against the requirement of 32 as per the Regulations of 2016. The petitioners had replied that it had appointed a total of 35 faculty members in all the 10 departments against the requirements of 32 teachers. It had submitted the appointment letters, joining letters, educational certificates, salary statements, biometric attendance and Form-16 certificates of the faculties before the Hearing Committee. Upon the same, while rejecting the reply of the petitioner, the Hearing Committee observed that the College had appointed 20 faculty members on 01.01.2019, however, it failed to produce the advertisements and recruitment procedure and also failed to produce the affidavit and certificates from visitors of all faculties. 24. Dr. L.P. Mishra vehemently urged that the ground of deficiency as mentioned in the hearing notice related primarily to the non-availability of the requisite number of faculty. The charge as indicated in the hearing notice was very specific to the extent that the petitioner-institution had 21 eligible teachers against the requirement of 32 teachers. 24. Dr. L.P. Mishra vehemently urged that the ground of deficiency as mentioned in the hearing notice related primarily to the non-availability of the requisite number of faculty. The charge as indicated in the hearing notice was very specific to the extent that the petitioner-institution had 21 eligible teachers against the requirement of 32 teachers. It has been submitted that though the documents which were submitted before the Hearing Committee related to the appointment letters, joining letters, certificates, biometric attendance as well as salary statements which clearly indicated that the petitioner had the requisite number of 35 faculty members as against the minimum of 32. Thus, it was not open for the Hearing Committee to have improved its stand and create a new deficiency by observing that the College had appointed 20 faculties on the same date and has non-suited the petitioner-institution for failing to produce the advertisement and recruitment procedure in respect of the said teachers. 25. It has been submitted by Sri Mishra that the issue before the Hearing Committee was regarding the requisite number of teachers and not in so far as the mode of recruitment or appointments of the said teachers. It has been submitted that if at all the Hearing Committee was of the opinion that the aforesaid documents were required then it ought to have put the petitioner-institution to notice and since they had all the documents available with them, they would have been happy to comply and place the same before the Hearing Committee but by taking this oblique route, the petitioner have been deprived of a opportunity of hearing and moreover the manner in which the respondent no. 2 has proceeded to deal with the submissions is also contrary to the charge of deficiency as mentioned in the hearing notice. Similarly, Dr. Mishra has taken the Court through the other deficiency pointed out as well as the observations of the Hearing Committee as indicated in para 10 of the supplementary affidavit. In support of his submissions, Dr. Mishra has also filed the requisite annexures to indicate that the observations made by the Hearing Committee are arbitrary and they do not relate or form part of the hearing notice. 26. The Court had made a pin point query from the counsel for the respondent no. In support of his submissions, Dr. Mishra has also filed the requisite annexures to indicate that the observations made by the Hearing Committee are arbitrary and they do not relate or form part of the hearing notice. 26. The Court had made a pin point query from the counsel for the respondent no. 1 and 2 to the effect that since the hearing notice required the petitioner to meet the deficiency which were mentioned in the said notice, however, the observations of the Hearing Committee which has been brought on record are on a different tangent not only in respect of deficiency pointed out at serial no. 1 but even in respect of other deficiencies from serial no. 2 to 27. 27. This Court does not wish to burden this judgment with each and every deficiency charge, the submission as well as the observations of the Hearing Committee, however, suffice to state that on the composite reading and consideration of all the grounds which has been meticuluously placed in a chart contained in paragraph 10 of the supplementary affidavit and paragraph 32 of the writ petition, this Court finds that the hearing notice which is in the nature of a show cause is issued to ensure that the institution which is put to notice, is made aware of the charge of deficiency against it. It is required to place it with sufficient particularity to ensure that the person required to answer is not mislead and clearly can understand what charge he is required to meet. From the perusal of the hearing notice as well as the impugned order wherein the deficiency have been noticed it would be seen that it does not question legality of the appointments but confirms to the number of faculty member, however, while considering and giving its observations, it has gone into the question of legality of the appointments and its procedure. It has further noticed that there is some discrepancy regarding signatures and that certain documents are illegible. In so far as certain infrastructural facilities is concerned it found that there are equipments which are 0.03% less than the requirement as mentioned in the Regulation of 2016. 28. The respondents do not dispute that the reply which was submitted by the petitioner-institution clearly gave its stand in respect of each of the deficiencies which was noticed. In so far as certain infrastructural facilities is concerned it found that there are equipments which are 0.03% less than the requirement as mentioned in the Regulation of 2016. 28. The respondents do not dispute that the reply which was submitted by the petitioner-institution clearly gave its stand in respect of each of the deficiencies which was noticed. The College representative had also explained the situation, however, the fact remains that in case, for any reason, if the Hearing Committee was in doubt regarding the authenticity of the stand taken by the institution, it ought to have put the petitioner-institution to notice to seek a clarification since depriving the institution from taking admission has serious consequences especially when an institute invests huge funds not only for establishing the institution but also for its upgradation from time to time. 29. Upon perusal of the entire record, this Court is satisfied that the impugned order by which the permission has been denied in light of the observations of the Hearing Committee do not stand to reason, inasmuch as, the ground mentioned in the hearing notice is on a different platform then the observations which prevailed in the mind of the Hearing Committee as a consequence the decision taken stands vitiated and to that extent it can be said that the petitioner was not afforded a complete opportunity of submitting its case before the Hearing Committee. 30. It does not require any lengthy submission to establish that if the show cause notice/hearing notice which is the foundation for an authority who proposes to take action, is vague or ambiguous or lacks details then under such circumstances it creates genuine apprehension to the person put to notice as he is deprived of a opportunity to understand the completeness of the charges against him. If the person concerned is not in a position to understand the charge he has to meet then any action taken by the authorities treating the reply to be inadequate suffers from arbitrariness. 31. At this juncture the Court deems proper to notice the decision of the Apex Court regarding provisional admission, recognitions relating with medical and educational institutions including consideration for grant of interim order and the time schedule. (i) Shri Morvi Sarvajanik Kelavni Mandal Sanchalit MSKM B.Ed College Vs. National Council for Teachers' Education & Ors. passed in Civil Appeal No. 11215 of 2011. (i) Shri Morvi Sarvajanik Kelavni Mandal Sanchalit MSKM B.Ed College Vs. National Council for Teachers' Education & Ors. passed in Civil Appeal No. 11215 of 2011. The relevant extract is reproduced hereinbelow:- 10. Mushroom growth of ill-equipped, under-staffed and un-recognised educational institutions was noticed by this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale and Ors., (1992) 4 SCC 435 . This Court observed that the field of education had become a fertile, perennial and profitable business with the least capital outlay in some States and those Societies and individuals were establishing such institutions without complying with the statutory requirements. The unfortunate part is that despite repeated pronouncements of this Court over the past two decades deprecating the setting up of such institutions. The mushrooming of the colleges continues all over the country at times in complicity with the statutory authorities, who fail to check this process by effectively enforcing the provisions of the NCTE Act and the Regulations framed thereunder... 13. Secondly, because this Court has in a long line of decisions rendered from time to time disapproved of students being allowed to continue in unrecognised institutions only on sympathetic considerations. In N.M. Nageshwaramma (supra) this Court while dealing with the prayer for grant of permission to the students admitted to unrecognised institution observed: "3. xxxxxx We are unable to accede to these requests. These institutions were established and the students were admitted into these institutes despite a series of press notes issued by the Government. If by a fiat of the court we direct the Government to permit them to appear at the examination we will practically be encouraging and condoning the establishment of unauthorised institutions. It is not appropriate that the jurisdiction of the court either under Article 32 of the Constitution or Article 226 should be frittered away for such a purpose. The Teachers Training Institutes are meant to teach children of impressionable age and we cannot let loose on the innocent and unwary children, teachers who have not received proper and adequate training. True they will be required to pass the examination but that may not be enough. Training for a certain minimum period in a properly organised and equipped Training Institute is probably essential before a teacher may be duly launched. We have no hesitation in dismissing the writ petitions with costs." 14. True they will be required to pass the examination but that may not be enough. Training for a certain minimum period in a properly organised and equipped Training Institute is probably essential before a teacher may be duly launched. We have no hesitation in dismissing the writ petitions with costs." 14. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in Managing Committee of Bhagwan Budh Primary Teachers Training College and another v. State of Bihar & Ors., 1990 Supp SCC 722, where this Court observed: "2. It is not possible to grant any such permission as prayed for because the granting of such permission would be clearly violating the provisions of the Education Act (see the judgments in S.L.P. No. 12014 of 1987 decided on November 25, 1987 and the A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society v. Government of A.P.)....". 15. In State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. v. St. Joseph Teachers Training Institute and Anr., (1991) 3 SCC 87 , this Court once again found fault with the grant of relief to students admitted to unrecognised institutions on humanitarian grounds. This Court said: "6. The practice of admitting students by unauthorised educational institutions and then seeking permission for permitting the students to appear at the examination has been looked with disfavour by this Court. ............ In A.P. 14 Christians Medical Educational Society v. Government of A.P., (1986) 2 SCC 667 , a similar request made on behalf of the institution and the students for permitting them to appear at the examination even though affiliation had not been granted, was rejected by this Court. The court observed that any direction of the nature sought for permitting the students to appear at the examination without the institution being affiliated or recognised would be in clear transgression of the provision of the Act and the regulations. The court cannot be a party to direct the students to disobey the statute as that would be destructive of the rule of law. The Full Bench noted these decisions and observations and yet it granted relief to the students on humanitarian grounds. Courts cannot grant relief to a party on humanitarian grounds contrary to law. The court cannot be a party to direct the students to disobey the statute as that would be destructive of the rule of law. The Full Bench noted these decisions and observations and yet it granted relief to the students on humanitarian grounds. Courts cannot grant relief to a party on humanitarian grounds contrary to law. Since the students of unrecognised institutions were legally not entitled to appear at the examination held by the Education Department of the government, the High Court acted in violation of law in granting permission to such students for appearing at the public examination. The directions issued by the Full Bench are destructive of the rule of law. Since the Division Bench issued the impugned orders following the judgment of the Full Bench, the impugned orders are not sustainable in law." (emphasis supplied) 16. Reference may also be made to State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale and Ors. (supra) and Chairman, Bhartia Education Society v. Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (supra). In the latter case this Court observed : "15. The practice of admitting students by unrecognised institutions and then seeking permission for the students to appear for the examinations has been repeatedly disapproved by this Court (see N.M. Nageshwaramma v. State of A.P., A.P. Christian Medical Educational Society v. Govt. of A.P. and State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale). We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the decision of the High Court rejecting the prayer of the students admitted in 1999 to regularise their admissions by directing the Board to permit them to appear for the JBT examination conducted by it. The two appeals (CAs Nos. 1228 and 1229 of 2011) filed by the Society/Institute and the students in regard to the 1999 admissions are therefore liable to be dismissed. (ii) Tamilnadu Dr. MGR. Medical University Vs. SVS Educational and Social Trust passed in Civil Appeal No. 10920 of 2018. The relevant portion is reproduced hereinbelow:- "We are in agreement with the submission made by the learned Advocate General for the State of Tamil Nadu that as the First Respondent did not have provisional affiliation, there was no question of continuance of the provisional affiliation to the First Respondent. The relevant portion is reproduced hereinbelow:- "We are in agreement with the submission made by the learned Advocate General for the State of Tamil Nadu that as the First Respondent did not have provisional affiliation, there was no question of continuance of the provisional affiliation to the First Respondent. The First Respondent is not entitled for the relief that was granted by the High Court for admission of students to the first BHMS degree course for the academic year 2017-2018 as it has neither approval from the Central Government nor affiliation from the Appellant. Exercise of jurisdiction in favour of provisional admissions during the pendency of a Writ Petition exposes the students to the risk of losing precious years in case of dismissal of the Writ Petition. Courts should desist from passing interim orders directing provisional admissions of students. [See: Krishna Priya Ganguly & Ors. v. University of Lucknow & Ors. and Union of India v. Era Educational Trust & Anr." (iii) Mahavir Institute of Medical Sciences & Anr. Vs. Union of India and Another passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 818 of 2018. The relevant extract is reproduced hereinbelow:- "This Court is not equipped to adjudicate a factual dispute regarding the existence of staff, patients, clinical material and other facilities in a medical college and hospital. Deference has to be shown to findings of an expert body which has found that the facilities in the Petitioner-College are inadequate. Unless there is a jurisdictional error or ex facie perversity in an inspection report, this Court will not interfere with a decision taken on the basis of recommendation of an expert body. See Medical Council of India Vs. Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS) & Ors., (2016) 11 SCC 530 ." (iv) Medical Council of India Vs. N.C. Medical College & Hospital & Ors. passed in Civil Appeal No. 9519 of 2019. The relevant extract is reproduced hereinunder:- "On the one hand, the High Court has doubted the report of inspection and for that surprisingly relied on the self-serving contents of the website of the college. There is nothing to vouch for the authenticity of the website information. passed in Civil Appeal No. 9519 of 2019. The relevant extract is reproduced hereinunder:- "On the one hand, the High Court has doubted the report of inspection and for that surprisingly relied on the self-serving contents of the website of the college. There is nothing to vouch for the authenticity of the website information. It is not what the institution asserts on website but what is actually found on inspection, that has to be considered by the court and while exercising judicial review it is settled law that court cannot sit in appeal over the report of the assessors as observed in Medical Council of India v. Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS), (2016) 11 SCC 530 thus : "21. 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. 22. The High Court did not appreciate that the inspection was carried out by eminent Professors from reputed medical institutions who were experts in the field and the best persons to give an unbiased report on the facilities in KIMS. The High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution was certainly not tasked to minutely examine the contents of the inspection report and weigh them against the objections of KIMS in respect of each of its 18 items. The High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution was certainly not tasked to minutely examine the contents of the inspection report and weigh them against the objections of KIMS in respect of each of its 18 items. In our opinion, the High Court plainly exceeded its jurisdiction in this regard in venturing into seriously disputed factual issues." In Kanachur Islamic Education Trust (R) v. Union of India & Anr., (2017) 15 SCC 702 it has been observed that affected party should be given an opportunity to meet the case effectively and the passing of just decision supported by reasons is part of fair hearing. It is the duty of the adjudicator to ensure fairness in procedure and action, the Court observed: "21. No endeavour whatsoever, in our comprehension, has been made by the Respondents and that too in the face of an unequivocal direction by this Court, to fairly and consummately examine the materials on record in details before recording a final decision on the issue of confirmation or otherwise of the LOP granted to the Petitioner's college/institution as on 12.09.2016. True it is that the Regulations do provide for certain norms of infrastructure to be complied with by the applicant college/institution for being qualified for LOP depending on the stages involved. This, however, does not obviate the inalienable necessity of affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the person or the college/institution concerned vis-a-vis the scheme for establishment of a college before disapproving the same. The manner in which the Respondents, in the individual facts of the instant case, have approached the issue, leads to the inevitable conclusion that the materials on record do not support determinatively the allegation of deficiency, as alleged. The Respondents having failed to persuasively establish the said deficiencies, as noted in the impugned order dated 10.08.2017, in spite of opportunities available including the one granted by this Court, such a determination cannot be sustained in the facts and circumstances of the case. We are of the considered opinion that in view of the persistent defaults and shortcomings in the decision making process of the Respondents, the Petitioner's college/institution ought not to be penalised. We are of the considered opinion that in view of the persistent defaults and shortcomings in the decision making process of the Respondents, the Petitioner's college/institution ought not to be penalised. Consequently, on an overall view of the materials available on record and balancing all relevant aspects, we are of the considered opinion that the conditional LOP granted to the Petitioner's college/institution on 12.09.2016 for the academic year 2016-17 deserves to be confirmed." There is no dispute with the aforesaid proposition. However, in the instant case fair opportunity has been given and the reasons in detail were mentioned by the assessors and MCI. It was a case of repeated inspections having been made. In view of deficiencies found permission could not have been accorded for session 2018-19." 32. That since the question regarding the deficiencies and whether they exist or not and whether they have been properly explained, is not within the domain of this Court to explore. Since the C.C.I.M. is an expert body and in terms of the Scheme of the Act it is for the Central Government to take appropriate decision, therefore, this Court does not venture any further and it is made clear that the Court has not examined the claims on merits but on the manner in which the decision has been arrived at. However, suffice to state that the manner in which the decision has been taken falls short of the requisite standards and, therefore, cannot be sustained 33. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order is arbitrary and the manner in which the decision has been taken by the respondent no. 2 suffers from the vice of colourable exercise of power and the order dated 22.07.2019 is liable to be quashed. 34. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances including the fact that the registration for counselling has commenced and the petitioner-institution has been unable to participate in the first and second round of counselling, therefore, coupled with the Mandate contained in the Act of 1970 and the Regulations including the decisions of the Apex Court as noticed above, this Court holds that ends of justice would be met if the impugned order dated 22.07.2019 passed by the respondent no. 2 is quashed and set aside. 35. The Court further directs that the opposite party no. 2 is quashed and set aside. 35. The Court further directs that the opposite party no. 2 shall be at liberty of putting the petitioner to notice specifying the deficiencies for which it wants a reply from the petitioner, within 10 days and the petitioner shall give its reply and shall be entitled to a personal hearing within 10 days from service of notice and after the hearing is afforded to the petitioner, the opposite party no. 2 shall pass a fresh order within 10 days, thereafter, so that the entire exercise is completed within 30 days from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before the concerned authority. 36. It is made clear that the Court has set aside the order not examining the deficiencies on merits, but on the process of the decision making, thus, the merits will be seen by the opposite party no. 2, who shall pass a fresh order without being influenced with any observations contained in this order. 37. With the above, the writ petition is partly allowed. The order dated 22.07.2019 is quashed. 38. There shall be no order as to costs.