JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioners by means of this writ petition have prayed for quashing of the order dated 15.6.2015 passed by the Secretary, Department of Medical Education, Ministry of Heath and Family Welfare, New Delhi (respondent No.1) refusing to grant permission to the petitioners to admit 150 students in the 2nd Batch of MBBS Course for the academic year 2015-16 and the decision of the Executive Committee of the Medical Council of India, New Delhi (in short MCI) taken in its meeting held on 29.4.2015 refusing to recommend the name of the petitioner Medical College for grant of permission for admission for the aforesaid batch. The petitioners have also prayed for a direction upon the respondents to renew permission for admission of the 150 students of the 2nd Batch of the MBBS Course for the academic session 2015-16. 2. The petitioner No.1 is a Medical College established by the Muslim Educational Welfare Society, Nidhauli Kalan, Etah and is affiliated to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University, Agra. 3. The aforesaid Society was granted permission in accordance with Section 10-A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) to establish a medical college at Firozabad for imparting education in MBBS Course with the initial intake capacity of 150 students for the academic year 1014-15. 4. On the basis of the above permission, the medical college established by the Society admitted the 1st Batch of 150 students in the academic year 2014-15. There is no dispute with regard to admission of the said students who have already completed their course and have been awarded degree by the concerned University. 5. The petitioner Medical college was refused permission to admit students to the 2nd Batch of the said course in the academic year 2015-16 and this is the bone of contention therein this petition. 6. The petitioner Medical College was inspected by the team of MCI on 5/6th February, 2015. In the said inspection no deficiency at the college was found for the purposes of granting permission to admit students in the 2nd Batch of MBBS Course. However, subsequently, on a complaint, the team of the MCI made a surprise inspection of the petitioner Medical College and recorded certain deficiencies. In the said inspection no deficiency at the college was found for the purposes of granting permission to admit students in the 2nd Batch of MBBS Course. However, subsequently, on a complaint, the team of the MCI made a surprise inspection of the petitioner Medical College and recorded certain deficiencies. On the basis of the said deficiencies, the MCI on 18.3.2015 recommended to the respondent No.1 not to grant permission to the petitioner Medical College to admit students in the 2nd Batch. The respondent No.1 accordingly vide notice dated 31.3.2015 called upon the petitioners to submit their reply in the matter. The respondent No.1 on consideration of the reply and the entire facts and circumstances of the case vide order dated 17.4.2015 remanded the matter to the MCI for reconsideration. 7. Consequent to the remand by the respondent No.1, MCI took legal opinion of the Additional Solicitor General of India and on its basis vide letter dated 29.4.2015 again recommended to respondent No.1 not to grant permission for admission to the students in the 2nd Batch for the academic year 2015-16. 8. The respondent No.1 acting solely on the basis of the above recommendation of the MCI passed the impugned order on 15.6.2015 refusing permission to the petitioner Medical College to admit students in the 2nd Batch of the MBBS Course for the year 2015-16. 9. It may be pertinent to mention here that in respect of the 3rd and 4th Batch of the MBBS Course of the aforesaid college commencing in the academic year 2016-17 and 2017-18 there was no dispute and due permission was granted by all the authorities concerned. The permission to admit students in the 3rd and 4th Batch of the MBBS Course was granted on being satisfied that the petitioner/Medical College fulfils all the requisite conditions necessary for grant of admission and there is no deficiency. The students admitted in the said batches are regularly pursuing their studies. 10. It is in the above backdrop that the petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court challenging the orders referred to above refusing permission to admit students to the 2nd Batch of the MBBS Course for the academic year 2015-16. 11. The students admitted in the said batches are regularly pursuing their studies. 10. It is in the above backdrop that the petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court challenging the orders referred to above refusing permission to admit students to the 2nd Batch of the MBBS Course for the academic year 2015-16. 11. It may not be out of place to clarify at this stage itself that on the filing of the present writ petition by a detailed and an elaborate order dated 15.9.2015 passed by this Court the petitioners were permitted to provisionally admit the students to the 2nd Batch of the MBBS Course for the academic year 2015-16. Consequent to the above interim order, the Counselling Authority for the private medical colleges in the State issued advertisement notifying 23rd September, 2015 as the date for counselling for admission of students to the petitioner Medical College. Again an advertisement was issued by the Counselling Authority on 27th September, 2015 for counselling on 28th September, 2019. Pursuant to the counselling as envisaged above, the names of the students were recommended for admission and 140 students were admitted by the petitioner Medicinal College in 2nd Batch of the MBBS Course for the year 2015-16. 12. Subsequently, the interim order of the High Court was stayed by the Supreme Court on 29.9.2015 in Special Leave Petition filed by the MCI. Ultimately, the said Special Leave Petition was disposed of vide order dated 10.04.2018 with the direction to the High Court to decide the pending writ petition on merit and the interim order passed therein was made operative till the decision of the writ petition. 13. The aforesaid interim order of the Supreme Court dated 29.09.2015 in no way affected the admissions made by the petitioner Medical College prior to it on the strength of the interim order of the High Court and on the basis of the counselling by the Counselling Authority. 14. The petition has been opposed by the Medical Council of India by filing a counter affidavit. The Union of India has chosen not to file any response. 15. We have heard Sri Swapnil Kumar along with Sri Chandan Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Avanish Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the MCI. Ms. Pooja Agarwal, learned counsel appeared for the Union of India. 16. The Union of India has chosen not to file any response. 15. We have heard Sri Swapnil Kumar along with Sri Chandan Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Avanish Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the MCI. Ms. Pooja Agarwal, learned counsel appeared for the Union of India. 16. Sri Swapnil Kumar submits that the students admitted in the 2nd Batch of MBBS Course 2015-16 under the interim order of the High Court have completed their studies up to the 4th year and are now in the 5th and final year of their studies. Therefore, in equity alone their admissions are not liable to be disturbed at this stage. The impugned order of the respondent No.1 is completely uninformed of reasons and had been passed without any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Moreover, it is simply based on the legal advice of Additional Solicitor General of India as given to the MCI. The MCI and the respondent No.1 have not applied independent mind in passing the same. Lastly, it has been contended that Clause 8(3)(1)(a) of the Establishment of Medical College Regulation (Amendment), 2010 (Part II) dated 16th April, 2010 in the light of which legal opinion was expressed does not apply to the case of the petitioners. Thus, he submits that the impugned orders and the action of the respondents are wholly illegal and unsustainable in law. 17. Sri Avanish Mishra in defence submits that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief in equity as they have disobeyed the interim order of the Supreme Court by granting admission to the students in the 2nd Batch for the year 2015-16. He further submits that the petitioners were not entitled to any notice or opportunity of hearing and in view of Clause 8(3)(1)(a) of the Establishment of Medical College Regulation (Amendment), 2010 (Part II) dated 16th April, 2010 their case was not liable to be considered for renewal of the permission. 18. The facts as narrated above clearly indicates that the dispute is regarding admission of students in the 2nd Batch of the MBBS Course of the academic year 2015-16. 19. Undisputedly, the permission to admit students in the aforesaid Batch has been refused by respondent No.1 vide order dated 15.06.2015 on the basis of the recommendation of the MCI dated 11.05.2015. 20. 19. Undisputedly, the permission to admit students in the aforesaid Batch has been refused by respondent No.1 vide order dated 15.06.2015 on the basis of the recommendation of the MCI dated 11.05.2015. 20. The above order of respondent No.1 simply states that the central government has decided to accept the recommendations of MCI dated 11.05.2015 and therefore, directs the petitioner Medical College not to admit any students in the 2nd Batch of the MBBS Course for the academic year 2015-16. 21. The aforesaid order assigns no reason whatsoever for accepting the recommendations of the MCI. 22. It is pertinent to mention here that on a plain and simple reading of Section 10-A of the Act a person is entitle for hearing in the matter of recognition/approval at two stages namely: (i) before the MCI at the stage of the consideration of the scheme to establish the Medical College or to increase its admission capacity so as to rectify the shortcomings if any which may have been detected by the MCI; and (ii) at the stage of the consideration of the matter for approval or disapproval of the recommendation of the MCI by the central government. 23. No material has been brought from the side of the respondents to establish that any notice or opportunity of hearing was given by respondent No.1 to the petitioner Medical College before accepting the recommendations of the MCI. The impugned order adverse to the petitioner Medical College, thus appears to have been passed in violation of the principles of the natural justice. 24. At the same time, it may also be important to repeat that earlier the matter was remanded by respondent No.1 vide its order dated 17.04.2015 to the MCI for reconsideration of its recommendation. The MCI in submitting its fresh recommendation to the respondent No.1 as a consequence of the remand failed to give any opportunity to the petitioner Medical College to explain its point of view on the deficiencies if any. It was made unilaterally without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-Medical College. 25. It is tirite to mention here that opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned consequent to the remand for the purposes of review of a decision is mandatory and is in consonance with the principles of natural justice. 26. It was made unilaterally without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-Medical College. 25. It is tirite to mention here that opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned consequent to the remand for the purposes of review of a decision is mandatory and is in consonance with the principles of natural justice. 26. In view of above, it is implicit that the petitioner Medical College was denied proper opportunity of hearing both by the MCI and respondent No.1 in making the recommendations and in accepting the same. 27. A reading of the recommendations dated 11.05.2015 made by the MCI to respondent No.1 reveals that the MCI had taken the decision not to recommend the case of the petitioner Medical College for admission of students in the 2nd Batch of MBBS Course 2015-16 primarily on the basis of the legal opinion of the Additional Solicitor General of India on the subject. 28. Apart from the opinion of the Additional Solicitor General of India no other reason has been assigned for not recommending the grant of permission for admission to the students in the petitioner Medical College. 29. The aforesaid opinion is based simply on the interpretation of Regulation 8(3)(1)(a) and 8(3)(1)(b) of the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999. The said Regulations are reproduced as under:- “(3)(1). The permission to establish a medical college and admit students may be granted initially for a period of one year and may be renewed on yearly basis subject to verification of the achievements of annual targets. It shall be the responsibility of the person to apply to the Medical Council of India for purpose of renewal six months prior to the expiry of the initial permission. This process of renewal of permission will continue till such time the establishment of the medical college and expansion of the hospital facitlities are completed and a forme recognition of the medical college is granted. Further admissions shall not be made at any stage unless the requirements of the Council are fulfilled. The Central Government may at any stage convey the deficiencies to the applicant and provide him an opportunity and time to rectify the deficiencies. Further admissions shall not be made at any stage unless the requirements of the Council are fulfilled. The Central Government may at any stage convey the deficiencies to the applicant and provide him an opportunity and time to rectify the deficiencies. PROVIDED that in respect of - (a) Colleges in the stage upto II renewal (i.e. Admission of third batch): If it is observed during any regular inspection of the institute that the deficiency of teaching faculty and/or Residents is more than 30% and/or bed occupancy is < 60% such an institution will not be considered for renewal of permission in that Academic Year. (b) Colleges in the stage from III renewal (i.e. Admission of fourth batch) till recognition of the institute for award of MBBS degree:....................... (c) Colleges which are already recognised for award of MBBS degree and/or running Postgraduate Courses: If it is observed during any regular inspection of the institute that the deficiency of teaching faculty and/or Residents is more than 10% and /or bed occupancy is < 80%, such an institute will not be considered for processing applications for postgraduate courses in that Academic Year and will be issued show cause notices as to why the recommendation for withdrawal of recognition of the courses run by that institute should not be made for Undergraduate and Postgraduate courses which are recognised u/s 11(2) of the IMC Act, 1956 along with direction of stoppage of admission in permitted Postgraduate courses......” 30. The Additional Solicitor General of India in the light of the aforesaid Regulations opined that if the case is covered under Clause-(a) of the aforesaid Regulation 8(3)(i) i.e. if the deficiency is with regard to faculty and bed occupancy, the case is not to be considered for the renewal of permission and as such there is no necessity of any notice or opportunity of hearing. 31. A plain and simple reading of the aforesaid Regulation would reveal that Clause-(a) or Clause-(b) or Clause (c) of Regulation 8(3)(i) of the Regulations are applicable to the Medical Colleges for the purposes of admission in the 3rd Batch and the 4th Batch. The said Clauses are not in respect of admission in the 2nd Batch. 32. Moreover, both the aforesaid Clauses are applicable only if the deficiencies are found during any regular inspection of the Medical College and not otherwise. 33. The said Clauses are not in respect of admission in the 2nd Batch. 32. Moreover, both the aforesaid Clauses are applicable only if the deficiencies are found during any regular inspection of the Medical College and not otherwise. 33. The use of the words regular inspection in the aforesaid Clauses have great significance and have not been used in a loose or liberal manner. The intention in using the said words appears to be to put all concerned including the College to notice of the inspection so that the discrepancies or the deficiencies existing can be taken care and if possible removed before the inspection. On the other hand the surprise inspection is done in a totally different situation and do not allow the College concern any opportunity to remove the deficiencies. It thus, cannot be equated with the regular inspection. 34. In the case at hand as has been referred to in the earlier part of the judgement that in the petitioner Medical College, the regular inspection was made by the team of the MCI on 5/6th February, 2015 wherein no deficiency was found which could have resulted in denial of permission to admit students to the petitioner Medical College. It is subsequent to the aforesaid inspection that on a complaint another inspection rather a surprise inspection was made and the deficiencies were said to have been detected. 35. Thus, from the narration of the above facts, it is amply established the provisions of Regulation 8(3)(i) (a) & (b) are not applicable to the case of the petitioner Medical College and that the opinion of the Additional Solicitor General of India appears to be incorrect as it has been rendered in ignorance of the terms “regular inspection” and “admission of 3rd Batch” and “admission of 4th Batch” used in the aforesaid clauses of Regulation 8(3)(i) of the Regulations. 36. In addition to all what has been said above, we also find that the recommendations dated 11.05.2015 of the MCI are entirely upon the opinion expressed by the Additional Solicitor General of India and had not assigned any other reason for refusing to recommend the name of the petitioner-Medical College for admitting students in the 2nd Batch of the MBBS Course. 37. Thus, there is no application of any independent mind by the MCI or the members of its Executive Committee, in taking the above decision. 38. 37. Thus, there is no application of any independent mind by the MCI or the members of its Executive Committee, in taking the above decision. 38. The practice of taking decisions on the basis of legal opinion without application of independent mind by the concerned authority that is supposed to act independently in accordance with law is becoming an order of the day which cannot be appreciated. It is nothing but shirking from the responsibility to take decisions by the concerned authority. The decisions given on the advice of an alien reflecting no application of mind gives an impression that the order is of the person giving the opinion rather than of the concerned authority thus rendering it to be an order without jurisdiction and in ultimate analysis a nullity. 39. Now coming to the equitable part of the matter the students were admitted on the recommendations of the Counselling Authority prior to the interim order of the Supreme Court dated 29.09.2015. There is no material on record to establish that any admission was done after the aforesaid date. Therefore, it is not correct to allege that the admissions were made in violation of the interim order of the Supreme Court. 40. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner Medical College had admitted students in the 2nd Batch of the MBBS Course of the year 2015-16 on the strength of the interim order of this court dated 15.09.2015 running into as many as 17 pages after counselling was conducted by the Counseling Authority on 23/27/28 September, 2019 before the above interim order was stayed on 29.09.2015 by the Supreme Court. 41. In view of above, the admission of the students cannot be said to be contrary for violative of the interim order of the Supreme Court. There is no material before us to hold that the above admissions or the counselling was antedated. It is not even the case of the respondents. 42. At the same time, it is also an acceptable fact that the students so admitted have completed their studies upto the 4th years and are in the 5th and the final year of the course. The said students are in no way said to have manipulated their admissions. No finding on this aspect can be recorded in the absence of any material to show their role in securing admission in any illegal manner. 43. The said students are in no way said to have manipulated their admissions. No finding on this aspect can be recorded in the absence of any material to show their role in securing admission in any illegal manner. 43. Thus, they are deemed to be bona fide students and as such on equitable consideration their interest is paramount. 44. Moreover, when students have been permitted to be admitted in the 3rd and 4th Batch of the petitioner medical college as there was deficiency with regard to faculty, bed etc. the objection to deficiency pointed out in respect of 2nd Batch looses all significance and remains to be a mere irregularity which ultimately stood cured. There is no justification at this juncture to disturb and penalise the students who have bonafidely pursued their studies so far. 45. It is important to point out that even the opinion of the Additional Solicitor General of India in the end mentions that the statutory scheme of the Regulations does not bar an institute from being considered for the purposes of recognition of MBBS Degree of the students, who have successfully completed the course. Any action on part of the MCI to the contrary would be too harsh to such students, who have completed their studies and had/have no control over either the College or the MCI. 46. It means that the Additional Solicitor General of India was also conscious that in any case the interest of the students is paramount and their career ought not to be affected on account of any illegality or irregularity of the College or the MCI provided they have bonafidely undertaken the studies in the course. 47. The students, who were so admitted in September, 2015, obviously have completed their studies upto 4th year and are now studding in the 5th and the final year. Since the petitioner Medical College has been granted due permission to admit students in the 3rd and 4th Batch of the MBBS Course for the academic year 2016-17 and 2017-18, apparently the MCI has accepted that there was no deficiency in those years which could have resulted in denial of permission to the petitioner Medical College. 48. Since the petitioner Medical College has been granted due permission to admit students in the 3rd and 4th Batch of the MBBS Course for the academic year 2016-17 and 2017-18, apparently the MCI has accepted that there was no deficiency in those years which could have resulted in denial of permission to the petitioner Medical College. 48. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the equity is squarely in favour of the students even if not in favour of the petitioner Medical College and it would be denial of justice if the education of the students who were admitted as aforesaid in the 2nd Batch of 2015-16 is disturbed in any manner. 49. We have noticed that much water has flown down the bridge since 2015-16 and in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is but futile to treat that there is no permission of the MCI/respondent No.1 for admitting students in the 2nd Batch of MBBS Course, 2015-16. 50. Accordingly, to put quietus to the matter, we quash the impugned orders dated 15.06.2015 and 11.05.2016 of the respondents and direct the respondents to treat that the petitioner-Medical College as having permission for admission of students in the 2nd Batch of the MBBS Course. 51. The Writ Petition is allowed with no order as to costs.