JUDGMENT : SHAJI P. CHALY, J The above writ appeal is filed by the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 236 of 2020 challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 05.03.2020 dismissing the writ petition. 2. The challenge in the writ petition was to Ext.P20 order, whereby it has been decided by the Government of India to request the Government of Kerala to withdraw/cancel the essentiality certificate (EC) issued by it to the SR Medical College and Research Centre, Thiruvananthapuram, the appellant herein, to establish a medical college, and also directing to send a detailed proposal for shifting the students of the appellant college to other private self financing medical colleges in the State of Kerala, and Ext. P21(a) consequential order passed by the State Government dated 05.01.2020 withdrawing the essentiality certificate dated 07.07.2016 issued to the appellant with immediate effect and steps initiated to prepare a concrete proposal for shifting the students to other private medical colleges within the State of Kerala and forward it to the Board of Governors of the Medical Council of India. 3. The writ petitions captioned above are filed by the students of SR Medical College and Research Centre, Thiruvananthapuram basically seeking a direction to the Kerala University of Health Sciences, Thrissur to permit the petitioners to write the respective semester/professional MBBS examinations, declare the results, pursue further studies etc, and in some challenging the afore orders also. 4. On submission made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant Medical College, we found that the appeal as well as the writ petitions are materially connected, and the disposal of the writ appeal would have a bearing and impact on the writ petitions, hence we withdrew the writ petitions from the files of the learned single Judge and heard them together on agreement in order to avoid any complex situations. We propose to consider the writ appeal and the writ petitions by narrating the facts separately. 5. The case of the appellant Medical College has a chequered history. The appellant had applied for establishing a Medical College during 2016 and the classes for the first batch of students for the MBBS course commenced during the academic year 2016-2017. We propose to consider the writ appeal and the writ petitions by narrating the facts separately. 5. The case of the appellant Medical College has a chequered history. The appellant had applied for establishing a Medical College during 2016 and the classes for the first batch of students for the MBBS course commenced during the academic year 2016-2017. The establishment of a Medical College is governed by Section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (hereinafter called 'the Act, 1956'), which stipulates that no person shall establish a medical college without the previous permission of the Central Government by which the Central Government has to issue a letter of permission (LOP). The qualifying criteria is mentioned in Regulation 2 of the Medical Council of India (Establishment of Medical College) Regulations, 1999 (hereinafter called 'Regulations, 1999'), and Regulation 2(3) specifies that there should be an essentiality certificate from the State Government concerned. Further, Regulation 2(5) stipulates that the applicant should have a hospital of not less than 300 beds with necessary infrastructural facilities capable of being developed into a teaching institution. According to the appellant, permission was applied for to the Government of India to establish a Medical College along with the essentiality certificate issued by the State Government dated 07.07.2016. But, fact remains, the Board of Governors of the Medical Council of India did not recommend grant of permission to establish the College due to the negative report on the basis of the inspection conducted in the College. However, the appellant College, thereupon, approached Justice Lodha Committee, a committee appointed by the Apex Court to oversee the functioning of the Medical Council of India, and by virtue of the favourable orders passed by the said committee, it secured letter of permission from the Government of India and established the college also on securing affiliation from the Kerala University of Health Sciences. Thereafter, admitted 100 students for the MBBS course during the academic year 2016-2017. Thereafter, admitted 100 students for the MBBS course during the academic year 2016-2017. But it is, relevant to note that, the grant of permission by the oversight committee was subject to the condition that the appellant Medical College shall comply with the norms prescribed by the Medical Council of India, in addition to submitting an affidavit affirming the fulfilment of all the deficiencies pointed out in the report of the Medical Council of India, and furnishing a bank guarantee to the tune of Rs.2 crores in favour of Medical Council of India. It is also a fact that the oversight committee made it clear that the default in complying with the said conditions would result in the debarment of the college from fresh intake of students for 2 years commencing from 2017-2018. 6. Likewise, in Ext.P2 letter of permission issued by the Government of India dated 20.08.2016, various conditions were incorporated, including the one insisted upon by the oversight committee. It was also made clear therein that permission of the Central Government is accorded initially for a period of one year and will be renewed on yearly basis, subject to the verification of the achievement of the annual targets as indicated in the scheme of the College and revalidation of the performance bank guarantee, and further that the process of renewal of permission will continue till such time the establishment of Medical College and the expansion of hospital facilities completed and a formal recognition of the Medical College is granted. A further rider was incorporated in Ext.P2 that the next batch of students in MBBS course for the academic session 2017-2018 would be admitted in the college only after obtaining permission from the Government of India and fulfilling the conditions of the oversight committee stipulated in paragraph 2 of Ext.P2 LOP. It was also specified thereunder that any admissions made in violation of the above conditions will be treated as irregular and action under the Act, 1956 and Regulations made thereunder will be initiated. It is undisputed that the appellant college had furnished a bank guarantee for Rs.2 crores in accordance with the stipulation made by the oversight committee as well as in Ext.P2 letter of permission. 7. It is undisputed that the appellant college had furnished a bank guarantee for Rs.2 crores in accordance with the stipulation made by the oversight committee as well as in Ext.P2 letter of permission. 7. While so, the Medical Council of India conducted an inspection in compliance with Ext.P2 and it is undisputed that they were not satisfied with the facilities offered by the College and decided to invoke the stipulations contained under Ext.P2 LOP. The Medical Council of India also recommended the invocation of the bank guarantee furnished, and to debar the College for two years. The Government of India accepted the recommendation of the Medical Council of India and orders were passed accordingly. In the meanwhile, the college applied for the renewal of the LOP for the year 2017. Anyhow, the College has challenged the order of the Government of India before the Apex Court by instituting Writ Petition (s) (Civil) No. 741 of 2017. However, by the time the case was taken up for final hearing, the schedule fixed for admissions for 2017 was almost over and therefore, the College was not given permission to effect admissions for the year 2017 and the writ petition was disposed of with the following directions: (a) The application filed by the petitioner for 2017-2018 shall be treated as the application for 2018-2019. (b) The Medical Council of India shall carry out inspection as per its Regulations. (c) The bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner shall not be encashed and the petitioner shall keep it alive. (d) After the inspection is carried out, if any deficiencies are found the same shall be intimated to the petitioner institution so that it can rectify the same. (e) If the matter eventually travels to the Central Government it shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners' representative and thereafter the Central Government shall take a decision which shall indicate reasons for the said decision. It shall take assistance of the Oversight Committee constituted by order dated 18th July, 2017 by the Constitution Bench in Amma Chandravati Educational and Charitable Trust and others v. Union of India and another.” 8. But, fact remains the application submitted by the petitioner for the renewal of the LOP for the year 2018-2019 was not favourably considered by the Medical Council of India and the Government of India. But, fact remains the application submitted by the petitioner for the renewal of the LOP for the year 2018-2019 was not favourably considered by the Medical Council of India and the Government of India. Thus, being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W. P. (C) No. 19386 of 2018 and that writ petition was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court and the appellant was permitted to admit the students for the year 2018. That judgment was challenged by the Medical Council of India before the Apex Court, and it was allowed by the Apex Court along with the other appeals in Medical Council of India v. The Chairman, Sr. Educational and Charitable Trust and others [ 2018 (14) Scale 614 ] holding that in view of the deficiency of faculty and bed occupancy, the decision not to grant permission for admission in the year 2018-2019 was appropriate. However, the compliance that had been submitted by the College on 22.05.2018 will be considered for the purpose of recognition by the Medical Council of India as provided under Regulation 8(3) of the Regulations, 1999. It further directed the Medical Council of India to consider the matter for the purpose of recognition duly considering the compliance unfettered by the order passed by the Government of India on 31.05.2018, and the Government of India was also directed to consider the matter of recognition in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. Anyhow, since the Government of India had not renewed the LOP from 2017 onwards, the University had also not granted extension of affiliation and the College was being carried on with one batch of students admitted in 2016-2017 academic year. According to the appellant, upto 2019 February to March, all the students appeared for all examinations till then. 9. Matters being so, one Sidharth Sreekumar approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 38089 of 2019 and other students have filed W.P.(C) Nos. 15610 and 20649 of 2019 basically contending that, in utter disregard to the order passed by the oversight committee produced as Ext.P5 in the writ petition, as well as the letter of permission, the appellant college failed to make up deficiencies or comply with the norms prescribed by the Medical Council of India. 15610 and 20649 of 2019 basically contending that, in utter disregard to the order passed by the oversight committee produced as Ext.P5 in the writ petition, as well as the letter of permission, the appellant college failed to make up deficiencies or comply with the norms prescribed by the Medical Council of India. The foundational contentions of the students, in those writ petitions were that the situations of lack of infrastructural facilities prevailed earlier, continued to be so during the academic year 2018-2019 also, and it was accordingly that the College was not allowed to have intake of the students during that year also. That apart, it was submitted that consequent to the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in SR. Educational and Charitable Trust (supra), the Medical College became non-functional. It was the further case of the petitioners that the infrastructure in the College as well as the hospital were deficient, and the faculty as well as the other staff included in the College and the hospital were quitting the establishment one after the other. Other contentions with respect to the poor academic standards and facilities to the students in the College were also highlighted and with the afore background facts, sought direction to the State of Kerala, the third respondent therein, to take over the management of the appellant College or to shift the petitioners to the other colleges, apart from other consequential reliefs for return of fees etc. 10. On 24.04.2019, in W.P.(C) No. 38089 of 2018, a learned single Judge of this Court has passed an interim order directing the Government of India to convene a meeting with the juncture of the State Government, the Medical Council of India, Kerala University of Health Sciences, the appellant College as well as the learned counsel appearing for the students, and to take a decision with respect to further proceedings so as to enable the students to continue their study in the course for which they have been admitted in the year 2016-2017, within a period of one month and to report the matter before the court on 03.06.2019. 11. Later, on 08.08.2019, yet another interim order was passed directing the Government of India to see that the inspection was conducted at the earliest and as expeditiously as possible, as already three months have elapsed since the decision was taken. 11. Later, on 08.08.2019, yet another interim order was passed directing the Government of India to see that the inspection was conducted at the earliest and as expeditiously as possible, as already three months have elapsed since the decision was taken. In the meanwhile, examinations were conducted and thereupon, an interim order was passed by this Court in I.A. No. 16 of 2019 holding that the validity of the examination would be subject to the decision to be taken on the complaint after conducting an enquiry. Anyhow, results were not published. While so, an inspection was conducted by the Medical Council of India and a report was drawn on 30.10.2019 which was to be taken into account by the Government of India in order to decide as to whether the recognition/letter of permission granted by the statutory authorities were to be continued. 12. Being so, the afore writ petitions were disposed of by a common judgment dated 31.10.2019 directing the Medical Council of India to forward the report drawn on 30.10.2019 to the Government of India forthwith and with a consequential direction to the representative of the State, appellant College, Kerala University of Health Sciences and the respective counsel appearing for the students on either side to be present before the Government of India on 15.11.2019 in order to proceed further on the basis of the report dated 30.10.2019. All the parties were also given the liberty to submit any written objection/representation on the basis of the report drawn by the Medical Council of India with a direction to the Government of India to take a decision in accordance with law at the earliest and at any rate within two weeks thereafter. It also directed the University to publish the results of the students who have participated in the examinations on account of the order passed in I.A. No. 16 of 2019 in W.P.(C) No. 38089 of 2018 dated 24.07.2019, subject to the result of the decision taken by the Government of India as per the directions contained in the judgment and also making it clear that the students as well as the respective stakeholders will be guided by the orders passed by the Government of India. 13. 13. It was accordingly that the appellant college as well as the respective parties were heard on 13.11.2019 and Ext.P19 minutes and decisions were drawn up by the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Medical Education. On a perusal of Ext.P19, it is evident that respective parties were heard and it was decided that, (a) the results of the students withheld by the University may be declared by the University (KUHS) and conveyed to the appellant college, and the others concerned for taking further action, and (b), considering the specific recommendation of the Board of Governors of the Medical Council of India and in view of the essentiality certificate (EC) issued by the Government of Kerala, it is decided to request the Government of Kerala to consider/withdraw/cancel the essentiality certificate issued to the College, and send a detailed proposal for shifting of the students of the appellant college to other private medical colleges, showing the vacancies in proposed private medical colleges located in Kerala, to the Board of Governors of Medical Council of India for consideration. 14. Thereupon, consequential Ext.P20 communication dated 27.12.2019 was issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Medical Education-I to the Additional Chief Secretary, Health and Family Welfare, Government of Kerala, specifying that after considering the deliberations in the meeting dated 13.11.2019 and the specific recommendations of the Board of Governors and the Medical Council of India dated 30.10.2019, it has been decided by the Government of India to request the Government of Kerala to withdraw/cancel the essentiality certificate issued by it to the appellant college to other Medical Colleges in the State. 15. Consequently, the Directorate of Medical Education, Government of Kerala as per Ext.P21 letter dated 03.01.2020 addressed the Registrar of the Kerala University of Health Sciences and the Principals of various self financing colleges, including the appellant College, requesting to attend the meeting to be held in the Directorate of Medical Education on 06.01.2020 to discuss the various issues to be resolved and the rules to be framed for the shifting of students from the appellant college to the other Self Financing Medical Colleges in the State. The Principal of the College was also requested to provide the batch-wise details of the students and their year of admission by return email, that day itself positively. The Principal of the College was also requested to provide the batch-wise details of the students and their year of admission by return email, that day itself positively. It was accordingly that Ext.P21(a) order dated 05.01.2020 was issued by the Government of Kerala, Health and Family Welfare Department, Medical Education, withdrawing an essentiality certificate issued to the appellant College dated 07.07.2016. These were the basic facts available before the learned single Judge. 16. The paramount contentions advanced were that the Government of India has no power to direct the State Government to cancel/withdraw the essentiality certificate issued by the State and therefore, Ext.P20 order is without jurisdiction and arbitrary and therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, that the order was passed without considering the objection submitted by the petitioner both to the Medical Council of India and to the Government of India and therefore violative of the principles of natural justice, and further that the Government of India has no power to direct the State Government to re-allot the students of the appellant college to other colleges. That apart, it was contended that the essentiality certificate is only a gist of the assessment of the facts situation which existed then unrelated to a particular college and therefore, the said certificate cannot be ordered to be withdrawn after lapse of a few years. 17. That apart, it was contended that the essentiality certificate is only a gist of the assessment of the facts situation which existed then unrelated to a particular college and therefore, the said certificate cannot be ordered to be withdrawn after lapse of a few years. 17. The Board of Governors of the Medical Council of India has filed a detailed statement refuting the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioners and also contending that Section 10A of the Act, 1956 prohibits establishment of a new Medical College or opening a new or higher course of study or training or increase in its admission capacity in any course or training, except with the previous permission of the Government of India obtained in accordance with the provisions of Act, 1956, that an assessment of the physical and other teaching facilities available for grant of letter of permission for establishment of a new medical college for the academic year 2016-2017 was carried out by the assessors of the Council on 16th and 17th December, 2015, the assessment report was considered by the Executive Committee of the Council and various deficiencies were noted, and it was accordingly decided to recommend to the Government of India not to issue the letter of permission for the establishment of the new Medical College for the academic year 2016-2017. The decision was communicated to the Government of India with a copy to the appellant College with a request to rectify the deficiencies and submit the compliance report. Accordingly, the college submitted compliance report on 28.01.2016 which was again subjected to compliance verification on 10.02.2016. Thereafter, the Executive Committee of the Council considered the compliance verification assessment report and again substantial deficiencies were noted. Accordingly, the executive committee of the Council decided to return the application for the establishment of a new Medical College for the academic year 2016-2017. The Government of India accepted the recommendations of the Medical Council of India and disapproved the application of the College for opening a new Medical College for the academic year 2016-2017. However, the oversight committee issued a letter of permission on 20.08.2016 subject to the statement of facts from the Dean/Principal and rectification of all deficiencies and fulfilment of statements made in the respective compliance report along with the other conditions. However, the oversight committee issued a letter of permission on 20.08.2016 subject to the statement of facts from the Dean/Principal and rectification of all deficiencies and fulfilment of statements made in the respective compliance report along with the other conditions. That apart, it was contended that in accordance with the directions issued by the Apex Court in the judgment in SR. Educational and Charitable Trust (supra), an assessment to evaluate the physical and other teaching facilities for the renewal of permission for the academic year 2018-2019 was carried out on 6th and 7th November, 2017,and the executive committee of the council again considered the assessment report and found substantial deficiencies ranging to 30 in number, including deficiency of faculty, shortage of residents, deficiency of bed occupancy etc. Other contentions are also raised supporting the order passed by the Government of India to withdraw the essentiality certificate and relocate the students. It is also submitted, in Chintpurni Medical College and Hospital and another v. State of Punjab and others[ (2018) 15 SCC 1 ], the Apex Court has laid down the law that the State Government would be entitled to withdraw the essentiality certificate, where it is obtained by playing fraud on it or any circumstances where the very substratum on which the essentiality certificate was granted disappears or any other reason of like nature. 18. The State Government has also filed a detailed counter affidavit basically contending that the complaints were received in the Office of the Honourable Chief Minister, Government of Kerala as to the pathetic condition of the petitioner College and the plight of the students admitted during 2016-2017. It is also submitted that serious allegations were raised as to the fraud played by the petitioner in getting the essentiality certificate and letter of permission from the Government of Kerala and the Government of India. It is pointed out that, the complainants alleged that the college fraudulently created a building permit in the name of the local body for constructing the college building using the forged seal and signature of the local body and the Secretary, and that the buildings were constructed without the permission from the local body. It is pointed out that, the complainants alleged that the college fraudulently created a building permit in the name of the local body for constructing the college building using the forged seal and signature of the local body and the Secretary, and that the buildings were constructed without the permission from the local body. It was further alleged in the complaint that since there was no building number for the unauthorised buildings, there was no electricity connection for the medical college and further that the faculties were not available in the college and the persons shown as members of the faculty, including the Principal are employed elsewhere. The Government, in accordance with the complaints received, directed the Vigilance Department to conduct an enquiry into the allegations and the vigilance after a detailed investigation and taking statement of the concerned and also on the basis of the documentary evidence collected reported to the Government that the Secretary of the Panchayat having lodged a complaint before the police, a crime was registered against the petitioner for forging both the seal and the signature of the Secretary and for creating a false building permit. The Vigilance reported the gravity of the allegations and insisted on registering a crime against the management and for a detailed enquiry through a Senior Police Officer from the CBCID and also recommended the necessity of shifting the students to other colleges to protect their future. The recommendation made by the Vigilance was produced as Ext.R3(a) along with the counter affidavit and on receipt of Ext.R3(a), the copy of the same was forwarded by the State to the petitioner and explanation was sought for from the petitioner, evident from Ext.R3(b) letter dated 21.10.2019. It is the case of the State that the petitioner had not responded to Ext.R3(b) and it was accordingly that on receipt of Ext.P20 proceedings issued by the Government of India requesting the Government of Kerala to withdraw the essentiality certificate, it was withdrawn. It is also stated that the State Government had issued Ext.P21(a) order of withdrawal of essentiality certificate after being convinced that the petitioner had obtained the essentiality certificate from the Government by employing fraud, and that the petitioner had failed to provide the required clinical materials, and other facilities, and also had no bona fide intention to establish the medical college, and that the representations made to the Government was false. It was also stated that the essentiality certificate necessarily is a 'No Objection Certificate' issued by the Government of Kerala to the petitioner for the production before the Government of India to establish the medical college in the proposed site, which is a mandatory requirement as per Act, 1956 and the regulations framed thereunder and while issuing the essentiality certificate, it requires the provincial Government to give an undertaking that in the event of the College being closed down, the Government takes the responsibility of the students admitted to such colleges. Therefore, according to the State Government, the totality of the circumstances would prove that the revival of the college is practically impossible and since the essentiality certificate was obtained playing fraud, the Government was at liberty to withdraw the essentiality certificate. That apart, it is contended that the continuance of the petitioner Institution is no more in the interest of the public as they had repeatedly proved that their endeavour is a failure, and there is no scope for revival, and therefore, the Government was justified in cancelling the essentiality certificate. 19. Reply affidavit was filed by refuting the allegations made by the State Government and explaining the circumstances with respect to the enquiry lodged by the Vigilance Department and the consequential registration of crime. It was also pointed out that the crime after the investigation was closed by the CBCID and therefore, the contentions raised in that regard in the counter affidavit is no more available for the State Government. 20. The learned single Judge considered the rival submissions made across the Bar and held that in a given case, where the certification given in the form of essentiality certificate has been rendered ineffective by the subsequent events, or as stated by the Apex Court in paragraph 36 of the decision in Chintpurni Medical College and Hospital, supra, where the substratum on which the essentiality certificate granted has disappeared, that the action of the Government of India on being satisfied that such a situation exists in requiring the State Government to withdraw the essentiality certificate already granted and the consequential action of the State Government in withdrawing such certificate cannot be said to be illegal or unsustainable. It was further observed that the starting of medical college entails an element of public interest, and indeed one of the certifications in the essentiality certificate is that it is desirable to establish a medical college in public interest. It was also found that in view of the report by the competent body i.e, the Board of Governors of the Medical Council of India that there is serious dearth of clinical material and deficiencies in the required patient availability in the hospital, that would amount to eroding of the substratum for the issuance of the certificate and the non-mentioning of separate decisions on each of the deficiencies mentioned would, in a case like the present one, be not fatal to a decision after consideration of the factual aspects and it was thus, the learned single Judge refused to exercise the discretion in favour of the appellant college. 21. We have heard learned senior counsel Sri. Kurian George Kannanthanam appeared for the appellant assisted by Adv. Sri. P.M. Sameer, and Sri. V.V. Asokan appeared in one of the writ petitioners assisted by Adv. Sri.A Ahzar, Assistant Solicitor General Sri. P. Vijayakumar for the Government of India, Sri. Titus Mani Vettom for the Medical Council of India, Adv. Sri. P. Sreekumar for the Kerala University of Health Sciences, Adv. Sri. M.A. Asif, learned Senior Government Pleader for the State, Sri T. B.Hood, Sri P. B. Krishnan, Dr. Thushara James, Smt. Girija K Gopal, Sri. C Unnikrishnan, Sri. P.T. Dinesh, Sri G. Sivasankar, and Sri. S. Biju, learned Standing Counsel for the Government of India appearing in the respective writ petitions, and perused the pleadings and documents on record. 22. The predominant contention advanced by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the writ petitioner students was that Ext.P20 order passed by the Government of India is a non-speaking order without assigning any reasons and it was also passed without taking into account the objection filed by the appellant college, and therefore, arbitrary and illegal being violative of the principles of natural justice and accordingly offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India. So also, it was contended that there is no power vested with the Government of India under the Constitution of India or any other enactment to direct the State Government to withdraw the essentiality certificate issued to the college. So also, it was contended that there is no power vested with the Government of India under the Constitution of India or any other enactment to direct the State Government to withdraw the essentiality certificate issued to the college. The learned senior counsel has also taken us through the provisions of the Act, 1956 and the Regulations, 1999 to contend that the provisions of the Act and the Regulations does not empower the Government of India to issue any direction to withdraw the essentiality certificate and also to establish that the State Government is not vested with powers to withdraw the essentiality certificate. It was also pointed out that the State Government before cancelling the essentiality certificate has not made any independent objective assessment so as to arrive at the conclusions, and acting on the mere direction of the Government of India without ascertaining the true state of affairs is illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice. It is also contended that no hearing notice was provided to the college before the withdrawal of the essentiality certificate. 23. On the other hand, the Assistant Solicitor General of India submitted that the Government of India while passing Ext.P20 order dated 27.12.2019 has taken into account Ext.P19 decision taken in the meeting held on 13.11.2019 by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Medical Education. It is also submitted that the case of the appellant college has a chequered history and from the very inception itself, the college was lacking deficiency and it was accordingly that on the basis of the report submitted by the Medical Council of India the letter of permission was declined and that It was in accordance with the directions issued by the oversight committee, Ext.P2 letter of permission was issued by the Government of India. However certain mandatory conditions were incorporated in accordance with the directions of the oversight committee, but the appellant has failed to carry out the same. However certain mandatory conditions were incorporated in accordance with the directions of the oversight committee, but the appellant has failed to carry out the same. It was also pointed out that having taken into account the facts situations available from the record, especially the report of the Board of Governors of the Medical Council of India dated 30.10.2019, wherein the evaluation report submitted by the assessors were taken into account and found that, the college was having substantial infrastructural deficiencies to continue with the functioning and it has violated the conditions incorporated by the oversight committee as well as the Government of India in the letter of permission issued to the College. 24. The learned senior Government Pleader submitted that the action of the State Government cancelling the essentiality certificate was after taking into account the necessary inputs available with the Government and having played fraud on the Government in securing the essentiality certificate. Learned counsel for the University also submitted that the learned single Judge was right in holding that the substratum of the essentiality certificate has gone wrong, since the college has failed to maintain the standards prescribed as per the provisions of the Act, 1956 and the Regulations, 1999. 25. Learned counsel for the Medical Council of India has submitted that the appellant College is not having the required and mandatory infrastructure in terms of law so as to continue with the college and if the college is permitted to continue, the career of the students will be ruined. It was also pointed out that while issuing Ext.P20 communication, Ext.P19 decision taken by the Government of India was borne in mind and therefore, merely because reasons are not assigned in Exhibit P20 inter office communication, that by itself would not suffice to hold that no reasons are assigned by the Government while taking a decision. 26. Now the prime question emerges for consideration in the writ appeal as well as the writ petitions assailing the impugned orders is, whether there is any legal infirmity to Exts.P20 and P21(a) issued by the Government of India as well as the State Government respectively. Before considering the same, it is only appropriate that Ext.P17 report of the Board of Governors dated 30.10.2019 is extracted and considered by this Court, which read thus: 27. Before considering the same, it is only appropriate that Ext.P17 report of the Board of Governors dated 30.10.2019 is extracted and considered by this Court, which read thus: 27. On an evaluation of the said report, it is quite surprising to note that the college was having a faculty deficiency of 63% and bed occupancy deficiency of 20%, apart from other deficiencies noted thereunder. In Ext.P17 report, there are serious allegations, with respect to the attempt of the college authorities to sabotage the verification, and even intimidation and threats during the assessment. It is also evident that the assessors were pressured to give a favourable report and offered incentives to the assessors for manipulation and changing the normal assessment report. It is also clear that during the assessment, unauthorised persons were present in the campus and it was observed by the assessors that there were no patients in the wards in the evening; whereas, patients were present in the morning. Even the assessors were prevented from interacting with the students, and the office of the Dean was locked at 10.20 and the Dean came to the College only at 11 a.m. 28. It is an admitted fact that the assessment reports were handed over to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant college in the earlier round of litigation filed by the students leading to Ext.P16 judgment rendered by a single Judge of this Court and it was on the basis of the said directions Ext.P20 was issued by the Government of India taking into account Ext.P19 minutes of the meeting, and the decision of the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. However, it is curious to note that Ext.P19 minutes of the meeting along with the decision was never under challenge in the writ petition. When a query was raised by this Court as to the absence of challenge to Ext.P19, learned Senior counsel for the appellant college submitted that the minutes drawn by the Government of India need not be challenged and Ext.P20 is the order passed by the Government of India. The minutes of the meeting is relevant to the context, which read thus: 29. The minutes of the meeting is relevant to the context, which read thus: 29. It is evident from the minutes and the decision that the Government of India, while considering the contentions raised by the appellant college and the other parties, have taken into account the objections submitted by the college and addressed the arguments in respect of the various deficiencies pointed out by the Board of Governors of the Medical Council of India, which thus means the college was conscious of the fact that it was on the basis of a negative report submitted by the Board of Governors of the Medical Council of India repercussions are being faced by the college. In that regard, the objections submitted by the appellant college namely Ext.P18 is relevant to the context, wherein it is submitted that even though the re-assessment was carried out on 18th and 19th September, 2019, the final report was filed only on 30.10.2019 ie., after a month from the date of assessment and pertinently several deficiencies were pointed out in the final report dated 30.10.2019, especially the deficiencies pointed out in Serial No. 6 onwards do not feature in the assessment report dated 19.09.2019. That such inclusions in the final report, which came to be rendered after a month, is patently demonstrative of the fact that the final report was, in fact, an afterthought and the entire inspection was vitiated. Therefore, it was contended that the said final report dated 30.10.2019 is only fallacious, mischievous, unsustainable and arbitrary. That apart, it is contended that the comments from serial No. 7 onwards are at the whims and fancies of the inspecting team and not referable to the assessment report and also not supported by any evidence and hence to be eschewed for consideration and the comments are as a result of personal prejudice of the individual members and not based on facts. 30. It was also submitted that the assessors failed to take into consideration a complaint by one of the students, in furtherance to which the Kerala University of Health Sciences had carried out an inspection of the college and had concluded with a finding that no irregularities and deficiencies could be made out in the teaching programme including the conduct of the examinations, which was ignored by the assessors in their assessment report. It was also stated that the assessors failed to take note of the faculty of the Dental college, which is a department under the same trust and in the said Dental College, there were three faculty members and one resident member, and which resulted in the report mentioning deficiency of faculty at 63% and residents at 87%. Again, it was stated that there are numerous photographic and video-graphic evidences, which would clearly disprove the observations of the assessors in their final report, and that would certainly indicate that the final report dated 30.10.2019 was a mere eyewash, and therefore, there was no logical reasoning for rejecting the faculty on the ground that they were appointed within 3 months prior to the inspection and further that they were on leave on the basis of the leave granted by the management. Apart from the same, it was also stated that the inspection team refused to look into the evidence by way of payslips, bank statements evidencing payment to the individual faculty members towards the monthly salary, which ex-facieprove their employment in the college. A point-wise submission was also made in regard to the allegations which is extracted hereunder for ready reference. “Point-wise submissions: 1. Faculty deficiency-63% : Out of the total requirement of 87 faculty only 28 faculty were accepted. 44 other faculty were physically present, and 7 faculty were on approved leaves (including Medical leaves, Duty off's and Conference visits). However, a total of 44 faculty (not including the faculty of the dental college) were not accepted citing reasons like they have joined less than three months before the date of inspection. 1.a. The total strength of faculty should include 3 members the dental college. 2. Resident deficiency -87%: Out of the total requirement of 46 residents (not including the 1 resident member of the dental college), 4 were accepted. 40 other residents were physically present, and 5 residents were on approved leaves (including Medical leaves, Duty Offs and Conference visits). However, a total of 40 residents were not accepted citing reasons like they have joined less than three months before the date of inspection. One resident from the dental college was also not included. 3. Bed occupancy-20%: This is a gross error of observation. However, a total of 40 residents were not accepted citing reasons like they have joined less than three months before the date of inspection. One resident from the dental college was also not included. 3. Bed occupancy-20%: This is a gross error of observation. As can be evidenced through photogrpahs taken at the time of inspection, 284 was the bed occupancy at 10 a.m. In addition, admissions and discharges were happening simultaneously. On both days of inspection, the bed strength was 75-80% on average, photographs, copies of IPD registers attached. 4. OPD - 250-300: This is a gross error of observation. As can be evidenced through photographs taken at the time of inspection, 483 was the OPD strength at 10 a.m. In addition, regular specialist OPDs were happening simultaneously. On both days of inspection, the OPD strength was 690-700 on average, Photographs, copies of OPD registers attached. 5. 1. No delivery or LSCS: Every third Wednesday and Thursday of a month, the Labour rooms, OTs and ICUs are subjected to cleaning and disinfection routinely. During those days, any obstetric emergency is dealt with in the one OT set aside. However, on the day of inspection, no obstetric emergencies were reported and hence no case was posted. 2. No major OT case: There was one case of Herniography posted for the day. Pre Anaesthesia Check up of the patient was conducted and the patient prepared for surgery. No other cases were posted as the OTs were under cleaning and disinfection. The same was intimated to the assessors, but to no avail. 3. No special radiological test: Special radiological tests are not mandatory on a daily basis. 4. No plan X ray: The hospital is equipped with three X ray units as seen and approved by the team of assessors, photographs are attached. 5. No Histopathology or Cytology: This is a serious error of reporting as the Assessors who visited the Central Laboratory had specially applauded the department in charge and also had a detailed discussion regarding the same. This is evidence through the videography evidence attached. 6. No serology tests: Serology tests are being done in the Central Laboratory, Details and registers enclosed. 7. Only 20 samples in Biochemistry: The assessors had only checked the samples that were already prepared and results printed. The other samples being checked and queued up were not considered. This is evidence through the videography evidence attached. 6. No serology tests: Serology tests are being done in the Central Laboratory, Details and registers enclosed. 7. Only 20 samples in Biochemistry: The assessors had only checked the samples that were already prepared and results printed. The other samples being checked and queued up were not considered. The list of samples received in the section has been attached herewith. 8. Only 25 samples in haematology : The assessors had only checked the samples that were already prepared and results printed. The other samples being checked and queued up were not considered. The list of samples received in the section has been attached herewith. 9. Only 4 samples in Microbiology: The assessors had only checked the samples that were already prepared and results printed. The other samples being checked and queued up were not considered. The list of samples received in the section has been attached herewith. 6. 1. In adequate space in exam hall: Of the requirement of 250 capacity with 250 sq.mtr., 150 capacity as noted by Assessors, has already been built for the existing batch of MBBS students. A remaining 100 sq. metre area has already been identified. Construction shall be commenced once the new batch of students enrol for the course. 2. No AV aids in Hospital LT : The AV aid installed in the hospital lecture hall is evident in the photographs enclosed for verification. 3. Deficiency of 5 beds in casualty : This is a gross error in observation. Our casualty is equipped with 15 beds in observation and 5 in trauma care unit. The same can be verified through photos. 4. Only thirty lines in intercom: 30 intercom lines are sufficient for the functioning of the existing batch. However, proposal for installing new intercom facility is currently being done. 5. Absence of Research Lab also exists: The Central Research Lab is situated on the third floor of the academic block. Also, research projects by certain faculty members are on going. 6. Dean Office was locked at 10.20: The Dean had been on his routine monthly visit to the Hostel and Canteen block at the time of inspection. As soon as the news of inspectors' arrival was received, the Dean was called in and he reported by 10.30 a.m. 10. Also, research projects by certain faculty members are on going. 6. Dean Office was locked at 10.20: The Dean had been on his routine monthly visit to the Hostel and Canteen block at the time of inspection. As soon as the news of inspectors' arrival was received, the Dean was called in and he reported by 10.30 a.m. 10. Dean came only at 11 am: The Dean reported to the inspector who was conducting the OPD rounds and later came to meet the Chief Inspector. The reported time of 11.00 a.m was the time when the Dean met the Chief Inspector. This is an error in observation. 11. Deliberate attempt to delay inspection by the College: This is an unfortunate remark by the team of assessors, which was not raised at the time of inspection, nor in the assessment report. This is completely false and all assistance to the team of assessors as asked for was provided without delay. 12. Delay in presenting faculty for head count which resulted in non conduct of head count on first day: This is a completely false statement made by the assessors. As the assessors asked for a meeting with the students which was arranged and went on for three hours at a stretch, the chief inspector reported that there was no time for head count on the first day. He instructed the faculty to be present with all documents on the second day and the same was arranged. Photographs of students' meeting with Assessor attached. 13. Lack of certified documents of land, building, occupancy, fire etc. All these documents were verified by the Chief Inspector himself but not recorded. The copies of the same has been attached for consideration. 14. Offers of incentives to the assessors: This is a serious, vengeful allegation made against the management. The management strictly believes in honesty and no such attempt were made. 15. Manipulation and changing the normal assessment report: As can be verified through videography evidence, the room where the inspectors sat for writing the report was accessible only to the Principal and two other faculty members in addition to the Office staff. The inspection report was prepared by the inspectors and kept in their safe custody. No alteration were attempted in the report in the college. 16. The inspection report was prepared by the inspectors and kept in their safe custody. No alteration were attempted in the report in the college. 16. Non co-operation in supplying documentation: All the documentation requested by the assessors were submitted and the same initialled by them. The same can be verified from the photographs attached. 17. Observation by the assessors and there were no patients in the wards in the evening whereas they were present in the morning: This is a prejudiced observation made by the team of assessors. No evening rounds were conducted by the assessors and the same has not indicated anywhere in the assessment report signed by the Dean, SRMCR. 18. Preventing the team from meeting students for any interaction: The team of assessors asked for a meeting with the students on the first day of inspection (18.09.2019) which was arranged and went on for three hours at a stretch. Videography and photography evidence for the same has been attached. 31. Therefore, on a conjoint consideration of Exts.P18, P19 and P20, we are of the view that the Government of India has taken a decision to request the State Government to withdraw or cancel the essentiality certificate, bearing in mind the facts and circumstances available before it, which in fact, was boarded in Ext.P19 minutes also. It is also important to note that by the very same decision alone, the University was directed to declare the results of the students and convey it to the college and others concerned for taking further action, which has also been taken, taking into account the entire facts and circumstances. It is an admitted fact that Ext.P19 was never under challenge in the writ petition. So also, the writ petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 10436 of 2020 has only challenged the communication of the Government of India dated 27.12.2019, and the consequential order passed by the State Government. 32. In that regard, learned Senior Counsel has invited our attention to the judgment of the Apex Court in Glocal Medical College and Super Speciality Hospital and Research Centre v. Union of India and another [ (2017) 15 SCC 690 ] and specifically to paragraphs 21 to 23. 32. In that regard, learned Senior Counsel has invited our attention to the judgment of the Apex Court in Glocal Medical College and Super Speciality Hospital and Research Centre v. Union of India and another [ (2017) 15 SCC 690 ] and specifically to paragraphs 21 to 23. So also, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 10436 of 2020 has invited our attention to the judgments of the Apex Court in Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. the Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi [ 1978 (1) SCC 405 ), Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chennai and others [ 2005 (7) SCC 627 ] and Senkumar T.P. IPS (Dr.) v. Union of India and others [ 2017 (2) KLT 453 ] to canvass the proposition that an order passed without assigning reasons cannot be sustained under law being arbitrary and illegal. 33. We have evaluated the rival submissions made across the Bar and perused the entire materials on record. Going by the principles evolved by the Apex Court in the aforementioned judgments, assigning reasons is necessitated to enable an aggrieved person to pursue his remedies effectively, and properly understanding the case against him, viewed in that manner, we are of the opinion that, taking into account the facts and circumstances involved in the said cases, it was held that an order passed without assigning reasons cannot be sustained. However, in the case at hand, from the facts and records available before this Court, it is explicit and evident that several rounds of assessments were done by the assessors appointed by the Government of India, the Medical Council of India, the University etc., and in all those inspections, it was found that there were serious deficiencies in the matter of mandatory requirements that are to be followed and maintained by the college for renewal of the letter of permission issued by the Government of India. In the discussion of facts, we have pointed out that even though the State had issued an essentiality certificate to the College evident from Ext.P1, on the basis of the report submitted by the Medical Council of India in respect of the deficiencies remaining with the college, Government of India declined the letter of permission. Ext.P1 essentiality certificate was issued by the State for the establishment of a medical college in Thiruvananthapuram District in public interest. Ext.P1 essentiality certificate was issued by the State for the establishment of a medical college in Thiruvananthapuram District in public interest. But, it was due to the interference of the oversight committee, Ext.P2 letter of permission was issued by the Government of India on 20.08.2016, by incorporating stringent conditions by the oversight committee and the Government of India. But, fact remains, the oversight committee was conscious of the fact that there were serious deficiencies in the college, and it was accordingly that the oversight committee directed the Dean/Principal and Chairman of the appellant College to file an affidavit affirming the fulfilment of all deficiencies and the respective compliance report shall be submitted to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare by 22nd June, 2016. It was due to the deficiencies that the oversight committee insisted the appellant college to provide a bank guarantee for Rs.2 crores in favour of Medical Council of India in addition to other financial requirements under law for establishment of a medical college, which will be valid for one year or until the first renewal assessment, whichever is later. The oversight committee has also directed an inspection to verify the compliance submitted by the college and considered by the Medical Council of India any time after 30th September, 2016. Therefore, the appellant college cannot be heard to say that they have secured a letter of permission, on the oversight committee finding that there were no deficiencies existed in the college for declining the letter of permission. 34. Anyhow, it is also an admitted fact that the College failed to comply with the directions of the oversight committee as well as the Government of India in Ext.P2 and it was accordingly that the bank guarantee was invoked and directed relocation of the students. Even though the order was interfered with by a Division Bench of this Court, the same was set aside by the Apex Court in the judgment in SR. Educational and Charitable Trust (supra) and directed to consider the application submitted for the year 2017-2018 treating it as an application for the year 2018-2019. Anyhow, the students of the college have approached this Court in the writ petitions leading to Ext P16 judgment pointing out the deficiencies and the lack of facilities in the college interfering with the mandatory requirements contained under the laws and the Regulations, 1999. Anyhow, the students of the college have approached this Court in the writ petitions leading to Ext P16 judgment pointing out the deficiencies and the lack of facilities in the college interfering with the mandatory requirements contained under the laws and the Regulations, 1999. It was at that point of time, the assessors appointed by the Board of Governors of Medical Council of India visited the College and submitted a report and consequent to which Ext.P17 report was submitted by the Board of Governors of Medical Council of India pointing out deficiencies in the college, which was directed to be considered in Ext P16 judgment and take a decision after providing participation to all concerned. 35. Therefore, now the question boils down to one issue: whether any interference is warranted to Ext.P20 order passed by the Government of India and Ext.P21(a) order passed by the State Government withdrawing the essentiality certificate. According to us, the Government of India has taken note of the entire facts and circumstances and the objection submitted by the appellant college, and perusing the materials available on record and the report of the Board of Governors of the Medical Council of India, a decision was arrived at, to accept the report of the Board of Governors of MCI. Actually, the decision is contained in Ext.P19, the minutes of the meeting of the Government of India with the participation of the appellant college and all other stakeholders in accordance with the directions contained in Ext.P16 judgment. We are also of the view that the Government of India has basically relied upon the Ext.P17 report of the Board of Governors dated 31.10.2019, which by itself is the reason for taking the decision. This means the Government of India has decided to prefer the report , to the objections raised by the appellant college and therefore, it cannot be said that no reasons are assigned. Thinking so, we are of the opinion that it is not imperative that the reasons have to be shown in so many words. Moreover, the requirement of assigning reason is to understand the ground on which a party is non suited and if that is discernible from the order, it can never be said that order is passed without reasons. What is a reason? Moreover, the requirement of assigning reason is to understand the ground on which a party is non suited and if that is discernible from the order, it can never be said that order is passed without reasons. What is a reason? Going by the dictionary meaning, it is a mind's power of drawing conclusions and determining right and truth deducing interference from premises. In our view, it is nothing but a perception attained on an assimilation of facts and law and, therefore, the decision taken has to be based on objective assessment, and a constitutional court considering an issue raised for want of reasons in an order, need only venture to ascertain as to whether, an objective assessment done could be made out from the material on record. Once the court is satisfied that reason assigned is discernible from the material on record, then the only endeavour need be whether, the order is suffering from the vice of arbitrariness, illegality or other legal infirmities, justifying interference in exercise of the power of discretion conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and if there are no such infirmities, it is well settled that the interference would be slow. This is especially, and more so in an administrative order. That apart , even though the appellant college has filed the objection controverting the findings of the assessors and the report of the Board of Governors of the Medical Council of India, we are of the view that the report of the Board of Governors and the assessors is a record in terms of the provisions of the Act, 1956 and the Regulations, 1999, which is official in nature and therefore, the said document has the advantage of presumption available under law. The appellant, who claims to have necessary records available with him to prove that the deficiencies pointed out by the assessors and the Board of Governors are not correct, did not make any effort to produce the same before the Government of India. In fact, except certain fragmented and stray documents, the appellant college has not produced any material documents to enable the learned single Judge as well as this Court to rely upon the same and identify whether the contentions put forth by the appellant college was right and find out any arbitrariness. In fact, except certain fragmented and stray documents, the appellant college has not produced any material documents to enable the learned single Judge as well as this Court to rely upon the same and identify whether the contentions put forth by the appellant college was right and find out any arbitrariness. It is also clear from the objection submitted before the Government of India that, even a claim is raised by the appellant that photographic as well as video-graphic materials were available with the appellant which would belie the findings rendered by the Board of Governors of the Medical Council of India. However, no such documents were either produced before the Government of India or before the learned Single Judge. Therefore, those were the circumstances and cogent aspects prevailed upon the Government of India to discard the objections of the appellant. So much so there is no allegation of any mala fides against the Assessors or the Board of Governors in the matter of drawing up the report in question or any other reports previously prepared, except a stray and bald statement that the Assessors had ill will against the college, however unsupported by any evidence. 36. Being so, the sole question remains for consideration is, whether there is loss of substratum as is found by the learned single Judge to dismiss the writ petition. The loss of substratum is a principle evolved by the Apex Court in Chintpurni Medical Collegeand Hospital (supra). The loss of substratum is defined under the Chambers Concise Dictionary to mean as follows: 'a basis, foundation, ground; the material in which a plant grows or on which an animal moves or rests; an underlying layer:' 37. Considering the facts and circumstances and the law discussed above, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant college has never shown any responsibility, earnestness and dedication to carry on with the administration of the medical college in terms of the Act, 1956 and Regulations, 1999, thus causing serious prejudice for the students to pursue their studies as is required under law. The essentiality certificate is issued by the State Government on the basis of the provisions of the Regulations, 1999 in Form 2 prescribed thereunder. The essentiality certificate is issued by the State Government on the basis of the provisions of the Regulations, 1999 in Form 2 prescribed thereunder. In the format prescribed, what was more impressive to us is, when an essentiality certificate is issued by the competent authority of the State Government, it is to certify that in case the applicant fails to create infrastructure for the medical college as per MCI norms and fresh admissions are stopped by the Government of India, the State Government shall take over the responsibility of the students already admitted in the college with the permission of the Government of India. Therefore, when the State Government has issued the essentiality certificate taking into account the essentiality of starting a medical college in a particular area, there is an impelling duty on it to take the responsibility of the students in case of any adverse situations in contemplation of law. Which thus means, a clear and compelling responsibility is shouldered on the Government of India to ensure that the students are not left in the wilderness, and their career prospects are not affected in any manner. Therefore, the theory of substratum propounded by the Honourable Apex Court, takes into account these whole lot of things, and once the State Government is satisfied that the foundation for the establishment of the particular medical college is lost, then, that by itself is a ground to withdraw the essentiality certificate. That never means the essentiality for establishing a medical college in public interest in an area identified by the Government is lost, but it continues 38. Taking into account the whole lot of facts and legal circumstances, we are of the view that the State Government was right in withdrawing the essentiality certificate with the avowed object of protecting the interest of the students, since the appellant college was lacking the mandatory infrastructure and facilities, as is noted by the Board of Governors of the Medical Council of India in its report discussed above. 39. 39. Even though the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that the action initiated by the police in Crime No. 45 of 2019 of Varkala Police Station, a refer report is submitted, learned Senior Government Pleader has produced a report filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Varkala Police Station dated 08.03.2018 from where we are satisfied that the crime registered is not so far referred; but for want of time for collection of materials, the police has sought time for completing the investigation by including the case in the undetected list. We are also of the view that the statements made against the college in the counter affidavit filed before the learned single Judge by the Government, makes it clear that there are serious allegations involving offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC, on the ground that a permit of the panchayat was fabricated by the appellant forging the seal and signature of the Panchayat Secretary. But, in spite of the same, the appellant has not cared to produce any document before this Court in that regard to establish otherwise, and canvass that the appellant college has secured the permit in accordance with law, for the construction of the college building. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that the appellant has not made out any case justifying interference in the findings of the learned single Judge in the impugned judgment. 40. Taking into account all those intrinsic materials required for consideration of the contentions advanced by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the writ petitioner, we are of the view that the grounds raised are not sufficient enough to arrive at a conclusion that the findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge that the substratum is lost, is in any manner irregular or irrational, and has not exercised the discretionary power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India properly. Moreover, when the writ remedy was invoked, the appellant was duty bound to place all the materials before the court to establish the contentions put forth, and the writ court should have been satisfied that those documents are convincing enough to be relied upon and arrive at a just conclusion. Moreover, when the writ remedy was invoked, the appellant was duty bound to place all the materials before the court to establish the contentions put forth, and the writ court should have been satisfied that those documents are convincing enough to be relied upon and arrive at a just conclusion. We also do not think that the appellant has made any efforts to establish his case before the learned Single Judge so as to secure the reliefs. 41. So far as the issue raised with respect to the direction issued by the Government of India to the State Government to withdraw the essentiality certificate, on the ground that, it is without any power, is to be considered by advertence to Articles 256 and 257(1) of Part XI of the Constitution of India dealing with the administrative relations. They read thus: “256. Obligation of States and the Union – The executive power of every State shall be so exercised as to ensure compliance with the laws made by Parliament and any existing laws which apply in that State, and the executive power of the Union shall extend to the giving of such directions to a State as may appear to the Government of India to be necessary for that purpose. 257. Control of the Union over States in certain cases (1) The executive power of every State shall be so exercised as not to impede or prejudice the exercise of the executive power of the Union, and the executive power of the Union shall extend to the giving of such directions to a State as may appear to the Government of India to be necessary for that purpose.” 42. On a reading of Article 256 of the Constitution of India, it is unassailable that the executive power of the Union shall extend to the giving of such directions to a State as may appear to the Government of India to be necessary for that purpose. On a reading of Section 10A and other provisions of the Act, 1956 as also the provisions of the Regulations, 1999 as amended from time to time, it is clear that there are various parameters delineated for granting prior permission for establishing a Medical College. On a reading of Section 10A and other provisions of the Act, 1956 as also the provisions of the Regulations, 1999 as amended from time to time, it is clear that there are various parameters delineated for granting prior permission for establishing a Medical College. Regulation 2(3) dealing with the essentiality certificate in Form 2 regarding 'No Objection' of the State Government/Union Territory Administration requires that, for the establishment of the proposed medical college at the proposed site and availability of adequate clinical material as per the council regulations, have to be obtained by the person from the concerned State Government/ Union Territory Administration. 43. Furthermore, it is only the Regulations, 1999 issued under the Act, 1956 insisting that in order to consider an application for establishment of a medical college, consent of affiliation in Form 3 for the proposed medical college has been obtained by the applicant from a University. Regulation 2(5) further stipulates that the person owns and manages a hospital of not less than 300 beds with necessary infrastructural facilities capable of being developed into a teaching institution in the campus of the proposed medical college. 44. Therefore, on a conjoint reading of Articles 256 and 257 and the provisions of the Act, 1956 and the Regulations, 1999, it is categoric and clear that the power in respect of the issuance of the letter of permission for establishing a medical college is always left with the Government of India. But, the essentiality certificate is insisted upon from the State, and affiliation from the University so as to enable the Government of India to understand the situation in regard to the public interest in the matter of establishment of a medical college in the area in question and act upon the same. In short, the essentiality certificate and the affiliation of the university has no independent existence detached from the letter of previous permission, which is the exclusive domain of the Government of India. This question was considered by the Apex Court in Chintpurni Medical College and Hospital and paragraphs 28 and 29 are relevant to the context, they read thus: “28. Moreover, no provision of the IMC Act confers any power on the State Government or Union Territory Administration to issue an Essentiality Certificate. This question was considered by the Apex Court in Chintpurni Medical College and Hospital and paragraphs 28 and 29 are relevant to the context, they read thus: “28. Moreover, no provision of the IMC Act confers any power on the State Government or Union Territory Administration to issue an Essentiality Certificate. What the Regulations do, as discussed above, is lay down that an Essentiality Certificate is the qualifying criterion for making an application for opening a medical college. In that sense, the provision recognizes an Essentiality Certificate issued by the State Government. It is nobody’s case that the State Government is conferred with the power or duty to issue such a certificate under any State law. In any case, in view of the fact that the field is occupied by a parliamentary law i.e. IMC Act, 1956, a State law even if already existing would have no efficacy in the field. As a consequence, the executive power of the State under Article 162 cannot be invoked. 29. The Essentiality Certificate, therefore, must be taken to have been issued under the IMC Act read with Regulations and not in exercise of any independent power of the State. Significantly, where no power to issue certificate is shown to have been conferred by the IMC Act or the Regulations, it would be futile to enquire if a corresponding power to withdraw the same has been conferred on the State. Even assuming that a power to issue such a certificate has been impliedly conferred by the Regulations under the Act, certainly, no power to withdraw the same has been so conferred. Such a power cannot be arrogated relying on Section 21 of the General Clauses Act.” 45. Therefore, there is no doubt in our mind that even though the essentiality certificate is issued by the State Government, it was for the purpose of consideration of the Government of India in an application submitted before it for the issuance of the letter of previous permission, and therefore, the essentiality certificate must be taken, to have been issued under the Act, 1956 r/w Regulations and not in exercise of any independent power of the State. That said, so far as the establishment of a medical college is concerned, it is a domain of Government of India, having been covered in entry 66 of List I of Schedule 7of the Constitution of India, which read thus: “co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for Higher Education or Research and Scientific Technical Institutions”. 46. Taking into account all the afore aspects, we are of the view that the State Government had to take a decision on account of the request made by the Government of India, especially due to the fact that even though Ext.P2 letter of permission was issued by the Government of India consequent on the directions of the oversight committee, it was with conditions and moreover it is clearly specified in Ext.P2 that the letter of permission was issued by the Government of India only for a period of one year and will be renewed on yearly basis, subject to the verification of the achievement of annual targets as indicated in the scheme of the college, and revalidation of the performance bank guarantee. It was also a peremptory condition in Ext.P2 that the process of renewal of permission will continue till such time the establishment of medical college and expansion of hospital facilities are completed and formal recognition of the medical college is granted. 47. In that view of the matter, we find force in the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the Government of India, the Medical Council of India, the State Government as well as the University of Health Sciences that the letter of permission was never renewed as is insisted upon in Ext.P2. So, the only material that was remaining with the Government of India while considering the report of the Board of Governors of the Medical Council of India was the essentiality certificate issued by the State Government in contemplation of Regulation 1999. Therefore taking into account the provisions of the Constitution of India discussed above, provisions of the Act, 1956, Regulations, 1999, and the judgment of the Apex Court in Chintpurni Medical College and Hospital (supra), we are of the view that it cannot be said that the request made by the Government of India to the State Government to withdraw the essentiality certificate issued to the college is bad or illegal in any manner. 48. 48. Now, we come to deal with the writ petitions filed by the students. W.P.(C) No. 26 of 2020 is filed by the students of the third year Professional MBBS degree, who appeared for Part I examination stating that, they have passed internal examination and paid the University fees, but not yet issued with hall tickets to sit for the examinations. 49. W.P.(C) No. 196 of 2020 is filed by the students of third year MBBS course, who have passed the first and second year professional examinations challenging the order of the Government of India dated 27.12.2019 and also the decision in the minutes of the Government of India dated 13.11.2019, which are the subject matter of challenge in the writ appeal discussed above and for a further declaration that the petitioners are entitled to appear for the third Professional MBBS degree part I regular examinations scheduled during January, 2020 by the University of Health Sciences and for other consequential reliefs. Reflected from the interim order dated 7th January, 2020 of the learned single judge, the challenge against the decision in the minutes dated 13.11.2019 and the order of the Government of India dated 27.12.2019 are withdrawn, and the petitioners are pressing only for the rest of the reliefs in regard to the participation in the examination, declaration of results etc. 50. W.P.(C) No. 503 of 2020 is filed by the petitioners who are third year professional MBBS degree students claiming to have passed the internal examination and paid the University fees, however, contending that the University has declined to issue the hall ticket and appropriate directions are sought for, for participation in the examination, declaration of results etc. 51. 50. W.P.(C) No. 503 of 2020 is filed by the petitioners who are third year professional MBBS degree students claiming to have passed the internal examination and paid the University fees, however, contending that the University has declined to issue the hall ticket and appropriate directions are sought for, for participation in the examination, declaration of results etc. 51. W.P.(C) No. 1147 of 2020 is filed by the students of second year MBBS Professional degree challenging the decision of the Government of India along with the minutes dated 13.11.2020, and the directions in the order of the Government of India to the extent of shifting the students from the medical college, and further to set aside, the second year MBBS professional examination held in March-April, 2019, where 52 students who wrote the examination were declared passed in the first year MBBS supplementary examination held in February-March, 2019, second year MBBS supplementary examination held in July-August, 2019, and first year MBBS supplementary examination held in July-August, 2019 for being discriminatory, as there were no regular classes, no attendance or clinical practices necessary for the students to face the examination and the examination itself was vitiated for unfair practices and cannot be considered as a fair assessment of the knowledge and proficiency of the students. And for further direction to the respondents to make necessary arrangements to accommodate the entire students of 2016-2017 batch (presently 99 students) of the 5th respondent medical college as a single batch in the third year professional degree course in a Government or aided medical college and to permit them to participate in the previous examinations afresh from the respective year of completion of their courses and for other related reliefs. 52. W.P.(C) No. 1506 of 2020 is filed by the students of the appellant college seeking to shift them to other medical colleges after due verification by the Medical Council of India and also seeking a direction to the respondents not to transfer them to Kannur Medical College, Kannur, Believers Church Medical College, Thiruvalla, Dr. Somervell Memorial CSI Medical College Hospital, Karakonam and DM Wayanad Institute of Medical Science, Wayanad. 53. Somervell Memorial CSI Medical College Hospital, Karakonam and DM Wayanad Institute of Medical Science, Wayanad. 53. W.P.(C) No. 2256 of 2020 is filed by the students of second year professional MBBS course, who have passed the internal examinations, however unable to pay fees to write the examinations due to the stand adopted by the University and they seek appropriate directions to permit them to sit for the examinations, declaration of results etc. 54. W.P.(C) No. 2259 of 2020 is filed by the students of second year professional MBBS course and they seek direction to the University to permit them to participate in the examination, and for other consequential orders. 55. W.P.(C) No. 2281 of 2020 is filed by the second year professional MBBS students, who passed the internal examinations and they seek a direction to the University to permit them to participate in the examination. 56. W.P.(C) No. 3022 of 2020 is filed by the students of third year professional MBBS course, who were registered for examination; but their registration was cancelled. The petitioners therein are the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 196 of 2020 and who have withdrawn the challenge against the decision and order of the Government of India dated 13-11-2019 27-12-2019, and they seek, a direction to the University to permit them to write examinations, and other consequential reliefs 57. W.P.(C) No. 3065 of 2020 is filed by the students of second year professional MBBS course, who have completed the 3rd and 4th Semesters and are pursuing the 5th semester, challenging the re-location of the students by the University. 58. W.P.(C) No. 3676 of 2020 is filed by the students of second year professional MBBS course seeking a direction to the University to permit them to sit for the examination. In W.P.(C) No. 9525 of 2020, the petitioners, who are the MBBS students of the appellant college, seek the implementation of the communication issued by the State Government dated 19.01.2020 for speedy shifting of the students from the college in question to other medical colleges. 59. W.P.(C) No. 8148 of 2020 is filed by the students seeking to finalise re-allocation by shifting them to the semesters to which they would have been admitted and for declaring the results of the petitioners 1 to 30 for the second and third year professional MBBS degree course. The petitioners in the said writ petition are petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos. W.P.(C) No. 8148 of 2020 is filed by the students seeking to finalise re-allocation by shifting them to the semesters to which they would have been admitted and for declaring the results of the petitioners 1 to 30 for the second and third year professional MBBS degree course. The petitioners in the said writ petition are petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos. 26, 503, 196, 2256, 3867, 2281 and 2259, of 2020 60. W.P.(C) No. 10436 of 2020 is filed by the students of 2016 MBBS batch challenging the order passed by the Government of India dated 27.12.2019 and the order of the State Government dated 05.01.2020 withdrawing the essentiality certificate marked as Exts.P1 and P2 respectively. 61. W.P.(C) No. 11602 of 2020 is filed by a student, who has completed the second year MBBS course seeking a direction to the Kerala University of Health Sciences not to withhold the results of the 5th semester examination and for a declaration not to require the petitioner to undergo the 5th semester examination. 62. W.P.(C) No. 11640 of 2020 is filed by the students who have participated in the first year MBBS supplementary examination by virtue of Ext.P3 interim order dated 24.01.2020 passed in W.P.(C) No. 1931 of 2020, which order was made absolute and the writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P5 judgment. The petitioner therein challenges Ext.P10 order of the Board of Governors to the extent it directs three NRI students who have not qualified the first professional MBBS Examination to join with a fresh batch of students joining in the re-allocated college in August, 2020. 63. In the above batch of writ petitions filed by the students seeking a direction to the Kerala University of Health Sciences to permit them to participate in the respective examinations, interim orders were passed by this Court on various dates permitting them to participate in the examinations and issued directions to accept fees and issue hall tickets to them, however on conditions, which are as follows: “(a) The Health University is directed to permit the petitioners herein to write the examinations commencing from 10/01/2020. (b) The Health University is also directed to evaluate the answer scripts of the petitioners who take examinations, however the results shall not be declared until further orders. (b) The Health University is also directed to evaluate the answer scripts of the petitioners who take examinations, however the results shall not be declared until further orders. (c) This Court in the present writ petition intends to examine the quality and also quantitative instructions the petitioners claim to have received for the academic year 2019-20. The issue boils down to the alleged right of petitioners to write exam and whether the right is dependent on petitioners following instructions from college or not. (d) The petitioners shall not claim a further right, equity etc, when respondents permit them to write examination as directed by this order. The direction now issued for writing the exam shall not be understood as this Court decided the entitlement of petitioners to get admission into 4th year of MBBS. This Court, with a view to ensuring standard of imparting professional education, will examine the conduct of curriculum schedules by college. A student unless receives instruction in third year MBBS, cannot be expected to do anything in fourth year MBBS. All these issues are considered after the pleadings are complete. Subject to further consideration in this behalf, appropriate directions are issued on all the issues. 64. In W.P.(C) No. 1506 of 2020, even though the petitioners seek shifting of the students to various colleges, a direction is sought for not to transfer them to the 4 medical colleges specified above. However, we are of the view that it is for the State Government to take stock of the situation and do the necessary for the shifting of the students to appropriate medical colleges and the reliefs sought for, according to us, is premature. 65. We are informed that the students have participated in the theory papers already conducted on the strength of the interim orders passed by the learned single Judge; but in some of the semesters, theory, clinical and practicals are yet to be completed. 65. We are informed that the students have participated in the theory papers already conducted on the strength of the interim orders passed by the learned single Judge; but in some of the semesters, theory, clinical and practicals are yet to be completed. The contesting respondent in those writ petitions, where the challenge was not made to the order of the Government of India and the State Government, was only the University, which has filed a detailed statement, refuting the claims and demands raised by the petitioners and basically contending that the reliefs sought for by the petitioners to sit for the examinations, declaration of results and consequential promotions, on them participating in the examination in terms of the University laws and the Regulations, 1999 cannot be sustained. It is submitted that consequent to the deficiency and lack of infrastructural facilities in the college, there were no proper classes and it was on the basis of the decision taken by the University that registration granted for the examinations were cancelled. 66. It is also pointed out that, in the earlier round of litigation, in the writ petitions filed by the students who are also petitioners in this batch of writ petitions, it was contended that the college was not having sufficient infrastructural facilities and faculty and therefore, they should be shifted from the college for pursuing their studies, have now come up with the contention that they are entitled to participate in the examinations since the classes were going on in the college. That apart, it is submitted that the norms of the Medical Council of India contemplate the conduct of practical examination in the hospital attached to the medical college, and the Regulations, 1999 prescribes the minimum requirement in the parent hospital attached to a medical college. In terms of the regulations, the parent hospital should have a bed occupancy of 75%; whereas in the last inspection conducted by the University on 24.08.2019, the bed occupancy was only 35% which was grossly inadequate. So, the hospital attached to the appellant medical college cannot be treated as a parent hospital attached to the Medical College. In addition to this, the medical college itself is non-existing and further that the practical examinations are to be conducted by the internal and external examiners and in the present situation, the internal examiners are unavailable. So, the hospital attached to the appellant medical college cannot be treated as a parent hospital attached to the Medical College. In addition to this, the medical college itself is non-existing and further that the practical examinations are to be conducted by the internal and external examiners and in the present situation, the internal examiners are unavailable. Thus, it is impossible to conduct practical tests in terms of the norms fixed by the Medical Council of India. So also, it is submitted that the University considered various reports and the order issued by the Government of India. The Government of India was of the view that the results of the examination held in July, 2019 could be published and even if the said decision is interpreted to mean that the college was functioning till July, 2019 or immediately before that, the students who are continuing in the third year professional MBBS Part I did not get proper training so as to make them appear in the examination. It was considered that a recommendation was made to the Government that those students have to continue their studies in the third professional MBBS Part I. 67. An additional statement was also filed by the University stating that the subsequent inspections in the college revealed that it was lacking facilities, especially in clinical and faculty. It is also submitted that in the light of the interim order passed by the learned single Judge, the students were permitted to appear in the examination with the examination centre at the University Headquarters. As the appellant college was no more functional, it could not be used as a practical examination centre and thereupon, the University explored other options to have the practical examinations conducted for the 25 students, so as to comply with the directions of this Court. The MCI norms warrant examinations to be conducted in the parent hospital attached to the college and with the participation of the internal examiners. As the postponement of the scheduled examination would badly affect the timely conclusion of the course, the University made the petitioners to attend the practical test in different colleges. It is also submitted that the State Government, in compliance with the request made by the Government of India, has withdrawn the essentiality certificate and further consequential action to shift the students. It is also submitted that the State Government, in compliance with the request made by the Government of India, has withdrawn the essentiality certificate and further consequential action to shift the students. The list of the students to be relocated to different colleges, to different semesters etc. are all provided in the additional statement. We are of the view that the details so provided are vital for the disposal of the writ petitions and they read thus: List of Students of S.R. Medical College and Research Center, Varkala to be continued the MBBS course from 6th Semester – The submission made by the University with respect to the manner in which the students have undertaken their studies and the course of action to be adopted, in the additional statement is also relevant and it reads thus: “7. It is submitted that the students listed from 1 to 52 had passed the 2nd professional MBBS examination in February 2019 but their training in the 3rd professional MBBS Part I could not be accepted as the clinical materials were lacking in the college. So those students have to commence their training from the 3rd Professional MBBS Part I [6th semester] onwards. 8. Students listed from 53 to 66 passed the 2nd professional MBBS examination in the Supplementary examination held in August 2019 and they have to commence the training from the 3rd Professional MBBS Part I [6th semester] onwards. 9. Students listed from 67 to 73 had registered for the 2nd professional MBBS examination but failed in the examination. The regulations for the undergraduate course framed by the MCI do not require the pass in the 2nd professional MBBS course to start training in the 3rd Professional MBBS Part I. Hence they are to commence their training from the 3rd Professional MBBS Part I [6th semester] onwards. 10. Thus the 73 students listed above are to commence training from the 3rd Professional MBBS Part I [6th semester] onwards on their relocation. 11. The students listed as serial numbers 74 to 85 passed the 1st MBBS examination in the supplementary examinations conducted in February 2018 and continued their studies in the 2nd professional MBBS examinations, but they did not register for the 2nd professional MBBS examination in August 2019 for want of attendance or minimum marks in the internal examinations. 11. The students listed as serial numbers 74 to 85 passed the 1st MBBS examination in the supplementary examinations conducted in February 2018 and continued their studies in the 2nd professional MBBS examinations, but they did not register for the 2nd professional MBBS examination in August 2019 for want of attendance or minimum marks in the internal examinations. Since they have to make good for the attendance and the internal marks they are to join the last semester of the 2nd professional MBBS [5th semester] on relocation. 12. The students listed from 86 to 91 passed the 1st MBBS examination in the supplementary examination held in August 2018 and was undergoing the 2nd professional MBBS training. They did not get the whole training in a proper manner and hence have to join the last semester of the 2nd professional MBBS [5th semester] on relocation. 13. Thus 18 students are to be put in the last semester of the 2nd professional MBBS [5th semester] on relocation 14. The students listed from 92 to 96 Passed the 1st MBBS examination in the supplementary examination held in January 2019 and are to be placed in the 2nd semester of the 2nd professional MBBS course [4th semester]. 15. Thus 5 students are to be placed in the 2nd semester of the 2nd professional MBBS course [4th semester]. 16. The student who is listed as serial No. 97 passed the 1st professional MBBS examination in August 2019 and he has to commence his 2nd professional MBBS [3rd semester] course on relocation. 17. The students listed from 98 to 100 are yet to pass the 1st year MBBS examination and they are to commence the 2nd professional MBBS examination after clearing the papers in the 1st year MBBS course. 18. The distribution as stated above could be tabulated as follows : Semesters Serial numbers Number of students 6th semester 1 to 73 73 5th semester 74 to 91 18 4th semester 92 to 96 5 3rd semester 97 1 3rd semester on passing the 1st year papers 98 to 100 3 Total 100 68. We have appreciated the rival submissions made across the Bar in so far as the writ petitions are concerned and perused the pleadings and documents on record. We have appreciated the rival submissions made across the Bar in so far as the writ petitions are concerned and perused the pleadings and documents on record. The challenge made against the order of the Government of India and the State Government, in the writ petitions were considered by us along with the writ appeal and already held that there is no scope for interference with the judgment of the learned single Judge and the findings so rendered are binding on the students also. So far as the other writ petitions filed by the students seeking directions to the University to permit them to participate in the examinations are concerned, we are of the view that in the earlier round of litigations, many students have approached this Court contending that there are no infrastructural facilities to the college to satisfy the requirements of the Act, 1956 and the Regulations, 1999. 69. So also, the students in W.P.(C) No. 9525 of 2020 in the cluster of writ petitions are also seeking implementation of the steps taken by the State Government for the speedy shifting of the students from the college in question. In most of the writ petitions, while the students are seeking a direction to the University to permit them to sit for the examinations, it is submitted that in view of the deficiencies of the college and the poor infrastructural facilities, they may be shifted from the college after declaring their results and granting them promotions in accordance with the Regulations, 1999 and the University Laws. 70. In the additional statement filed by the University which is quoted above, the University has clarified the position of the students including the lack of attendance etc. Even though various contentions are raised by the students with respect to the conduct of the classes and sufficient attendance, no sufficient materials are placed before us enabling us to rely upon the same to arrive at a different conclusion than the one projected by the University before us. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that being a medical profession, the students are not entitled to get any leniency, if they have not attended the classes, clinical and practical and have not undertaken the curriculum in terms of the Act, 1956 and the Regulation, 1999, the stand adopted by the University cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary. 71. 71. Going by the additional statement filed by the University, it took the period prior to July, 2019 as the last period during which it could be deemed that the college was functioning. We also find force in the submission of the University that in the course curriculum for MBBS, the stress is given to the clinical training in the 6th and 7th semesters and hence a well equipped hospital is necessary. It was also pointed out that clinical materials were lacking for imparting the training during the said period for the 6th semester students in the appellant college. Taking into account all these aspects, we are of the considered opinion that the stand adopted by the Kerala University of Health Sciences in respect of the continuance of the students as quoted above may be the only viable and feasible option and therefore, in our view it has to be left to the wisdom of the university . In the result, (1) W.A. No. 583 of 2020 is dismissed. (2) W.P.(C) Nos. 26, 196, 503, 1147, 2256, 2259, 2281, 3022, 3065, 3676, 8148, 11602 and 11640, of 2020 are disposed of granting liberty to the university to take appropriate decision so far as the declaration of results and all consequential actions are concerned, of the students participated in the examinations in accordance with the interim orders passed or otherwise, also bearing in mind the harsh realities, practicality and the provisions under the Regulations, 1999 and the laws of the University enabling the students for a pass to the next level on sitting for the examinations except the 1st MBBS course. (3) W.P.(C) No. 9525 of 2020 seeking direction to take speedy steps to shift the students would stand allowed and accordingly, there will be a direction to the all concerned to take necessary action in terms of law to shift the students to appropriate medical colleges also taking into consideration their requests, permanent residence etc. to the extent possible, so as to accommodate them in the nearest medical colleges, and in accordance with law. (4) W.P. (C) No. 1506 of 2020 is partly allowed in terms of the order in W.P. (C) No. 9525 of 2020 as above. to the extent possible, so as to accommodate them in the nearest medical colleges, and in accordance with law. (4) W.P. (C) No. 1506 of 2020 is partly allowed in terms of the order in W.P. (C) No. 9525 of 2020 as above. All the other reliefs sought for in W. P (C) No. 1147 of 2020 other than the relief granted at serial No.2 above are declined in view of the findings in the writ appeal. W.P. (C) No. 10436 of 2020 is also dismissed in terms of the findings in the Writ Appeal. (5) The College shall take necessary steps to return the fees and other financial commitments, if any, due to the students, and also the original certificate without any further delay, failing which the State shall take necessary steps to recover the same.