JUDGMENT : The petitioner Dental College is conducting Bachelor of Dental Surgery (for brevity, 'BDS') with an intake of 100 seats, as evident from Ext.P2 communication dated 31.07.2017 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, the additional 3rd respondent, and Master of Dental Surgery (for brevity, 'MDS') in 8 specialties with an intake of 3 seats each, as evident from Ext.P3 notification dated 14.07.2017 issued by the said respondent, on the strength of recognition granted by the 2nd respondent Dental Council of India and affiliation granted by the 1st respondent Kerala University of Health and Sciences. The petitioner has filed this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent University to consider Ext.P10 application dated 18.09.2020 made by the petitioner and grant consent of affiliation, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. The request made in Ext.P10 is to grant consent of affiliation for enhancement of intake in 5 MDS specialties, for the academic year 2021-22, so as to enable the petitioner to submit the same before the 2nd respondent Dental Council of India. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent University to keep its web portal opened for a specified number of days to receive the online application that has to be preferred by the petitioner. 2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, seeking enhancement of intake in 5 MDS specialties from 3 to 6, for the academic year 2021-22, the petitioner preferred Exts.P4 to P8 applications before the additional 3rd respondent. Though Exts.P4 to P8 applications are dated 28.07.2020, the demand drafts for Rs.5,31,000/- each, enclosed along with those applications are dated 30.07.2020. The additional 3rd respondent forwarded those application to the 2nd respondent Dental Council of India, along with letter No.V.12017/4/2020-DE [8058672] dated 10.08.2020, for evaluation and necessary action as per the provisions under the Dentists Act, 1948 and the Rules and Regulations made thereunder, for the academic year 2021-22. The Executive Committee of the Dental Council of India, in its meeting held on 02.09.2010, decided to ask the college authorities to submit letter of University's permission, valid for the entire duration of the MDS course, for increase of intake in 5 specialties, from the affiliating University, within 10 days. The Executive Committee of the Dental Council of India, in its meeting held on 02.09.2010, decided to ask the college authorities to submit letter of University's permission, valid for the entire duration of the MDS course, for increase of intake in 5 specialties, from the affiliating University, within 10 days. Based on that decision, the 2nd respondent by Ext.P9 letter dated 18.09.2020 required the petitioner to submit letter of University's permission, valid for the entire duration of the MDS course, from the affiliating University, within 10 days. The time limit specified in Ext.P9 for submission of consent of affiliation from the 1st respondent University expired on 28.09.2020. It is averred in Para.4 of the writ petition that, the 1st respondent University refused to issue notification for the academic year 2021-22, calling for applications for enhancement of intake. It was in such circumstances and keeping in mind the time schedule set under the Dental Council of India Regulations that the petitioner preferred Exts.P4 to P8 applications, even in the absence of consent of affiliation from the 1st respondent University. The 2nd respondent insists for submission of consent of affiliation from the 1st respondent University and non-submission of consent of affiliation may result in rejection of Exts.P4 to P8 applications. Following the direction in Ext.P9, the petitioner submitted Ext.P10 application dated 18.09.2020, before the 1st respondent University, enclosing therewith a copy of Ext.P9, requesting the University to consider the same as a formal application, in the absence of any notification enabling online application for consent of affiliation, and to grant the same. Alleging inaction on the part of the 1st respondent University in considering the request made in Ext.P10 application, the petitioner has approached this Court in this writ petition, seeking the aforesaid reliefs. 3. On 23.09.2020, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent University and also the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent Dental Council of India sought time to get instructions and file statement, if found necessary. 4. 3. On 23.09.2020, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent University and also the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent Dental Council of India sought time to get instructions and file statement, if found necessary. 4. On 28.09.2020, when this writ petition was taken up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent University submitted that the University has already addressed a communication to the 2nd respondent Dental Council of India pointing out the law laid down by the Apex Court in D.Y. Patil Medical College v. Medical Council of India [ (2015) 10 SCC 51 ]. 5. On 30.09.2020, the petitioner was directed to file an application to implead the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare as additional respondent. The petitioner filed I.A. No.1 of 2020 for that purpose, which was allowed as prayed for by the order dated 01.10.2020. On 08.10.2020, the petitioner filed I.A.No.2 of 2020 seeking an order to accept Ext.P12 e-mail dated 28.04.2020 of the Deputy Secretary (DE), whereby the 2nd respondent Dental Council of India was instructed to accept subsequently, the deficient documents in the application submitted before the Central Government by the dental colleges for starting MDS/PG Diploma courses and for increase of seats in existing MDS/PG Diploma courses, for the academic year 2021-22. 6. A statement has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent University, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition, contending that, in terms of the regulations framed for the grant of letter of permission from the Central Government for dental courses, the applicant college is duty bound to submit that application along with the consent of affiliation granted by the concerned University. It is settled law that an incomplete application submitted is liable to be rejected at the first stage itself. In Royal Medical Trust v. Union of India [ (2015) 10 SCC 19 ] the Apex Court held that initial assessment of the application at the first level should comprise of checking necessary requirements such as essentiality certificate, consent for affiliation and physical features like land and hospital requirement. If an applicant fails to fulfill these requirements, the application on the face of it, would be incomplete and be rejected. Those who fulfill the basic requirements would be considered at the next stage. If an applicant fails to fulfill these requirements, the application on the face of it, would be incomplete and be rejected. Those who fulfill the basic requirements would be considered at the next stage. The Apex Court has stressed the need to stick to the time line fixed for each purpose while processing the application for letter of permission and no authority is permitted to violate the same. The 1st respondent would point out that, the processing of an application for consent of affiliation includes the inspection of the institution to verify the infrastructure available. In terms of the judgments rendered by the Apex Court, every inspection should have an element of surprise. This could be achieved only if there is sufficient time available in scheduling the inspections. In order to facilitate the same the University notifies the invitation of application for affiliation well in advance. On the other hand, if an application is received without such a notification and the same is to be processed in a span of 10 days, as the petitioner has demanded, such actions would negative the whole purpose of inspections. 7. In the statement the 1st respondent pointed out that, the University did not invite applications for affiliation for the academic year 2021-22. Normally this would have happened in December, 2019. The petitioner being aware of the fact that no applications were invited did not take any action to challenge the decision of the University. In the decision cited by the petitioner, the petitioner therein challenged the action of the University in time. The petitioner did not approach the University for the consent of affiliation before submitting the request to the Central Government for grant of letter of permission. The Central Government erred in forwarding a defective application to the 2nd respondent for further processing. The action of the Central Government is in violation of the dictum laid down in Royal Medical Trust [ (2015) 10 SCC 19 ]. The 2nd respondent by permitting the petitioner to submit documents like the consent of affiliation on a later stage would also amount to violation of the mandate of the Apex Court Judgment. In the said circumstances the 2nd respondent addressed Annexure R1A request before the 2nd respondent, on 24.09.2020, pointing out that the time schedule has to be strictly adhered to and that the authorities have to act in tandem. 8. In the said circumstances the 2nd respondent addressed Annexure R1A request before the 2nd respondent, on 24.09.2020, pointing out that the time schedule has to be strictly adhered to and that the authorities have to act in tandem. 8. A statement has been filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent Dental Council of India, contending that, the Dental Council of India in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 10A read with Section 20 of the Dentists Act, 1948, with the previous approval of the Central Government, has published the Dental Council of India (Establishment of New Dental Colleges Opening of New or Higher Course of Study of Training and increase of Admission Capacity in Dental Colleges) Regulations, 2006. The Union of India in exercise of its power under Foot Note (2) below the Time Schedule annexed to the Regulations, by Ext.R2(a) public notice dated 07.07.2020, has extended the last date for receipt of application for MDS Courses, for the academic year 2021-2022, till 31.07.2020. The Union of India as per Ext.R2(b) letter dated 10.08.2020 has forwarded the schemes in respect of 14 dental colleges, including that of the petitioner, for starting MDS course in 5 specialties for the academic session 2021-22. In Para.3 of that letter it is stated that the college at Sl.No.14, the petitioner herein, had sent the letter dated 28.07.2020 through e-mail and physical/ original application has not been received, that the college is being requested to submit original/physical application to the Ministry at the earliest and same shall be sent to the DCI, as and when received. In the statement, the 2nd respondent has pointed out that, the requirement of essentiality certificate from the respective State Government for starting MDS course/increase of seats is no more in force. 9. The learned Assistant Solicitor General of India has filed a statement on behalf of the additional 3rd respondent, in which it is stated that, the Dentists Act empowers DCI to carry out detailed technical recommendations to the Central Government. 9. The learned Assistant Solicitor General of India has filed a statement on behalf of the additional 3rd respondent, in which it is stated that, the Dentists Act empowers DCI to carry out detailed technical recommendations to the Central Government. In the wake of Covid-19 pandemic and the difficulties that the colleges may face in obtaining requisite documents from the State scrutiny, obtain necessary particulars from the applicant, if the application is defective, and carry out assessment of the schemes/applications for making appropriate Government/Universities, etc., during lock down period, the Ministry has extended the time for receipt of applications initially upto 30.04.2020, thereafter upto 12.05.2020 and finally till 31.07.2020, for receipt of application in the Ministry and till 10.08.2020 for forwarding the application to the DCI. While extending the time upto 12.05.2020, the Ministry asked DCI to publish an notice on their website that the applicant dental colleges may submit the application by due date at least with fees. It was also indicated that DCI would accept deficient documents subsequently. The Ministry has accordingly sent the application of the petitioner college to the DCI by the due date, i.e., 10.08.2020 for evaluating and making recommendations. 10. Along with I.A. No.4 of 2020, the petitioner has placed on record Ext.P13 communication dated 14.10.2020 issued by the 2nd respondent Dental Council of India, in continuation of Ext.P9 letter dated 18.09.2020, whereby the petitioner was directed to furnish the requisite document within 7 days. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent University, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent Dental Council of India and also the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for the additional 3rd respondent. 12. The Dentist Act, 1948 (for brevity, 'the Act') was enacted by the Parliament for the regulation of the profession of dentistry and for that purpose to constitute Dental Councils. Section 10 of the Act deals with recognition of dental qualifications. As per sub-section (1) of Section 10, the dental qualifications granted by any authority or institution in India, which are included in Part I of the Schedule shall be recognised dental qualifications for the purposes of this Act. Section 10A of the Act deals with permission for establishment of new dental college, new courses of study, etc. As per sub-section (1) of Section 10, the dental qualifications granted by any authority or institution in India, which are included in Part I of the Schedule shall be recognised dental qualifications for the purposes of this Act. Section 10A of the Act deals with permission for establishment of new dental college, new courses of study, etc. As per sub-section (1) of Section 10A, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, (a) no person shall establish an authority or institution for a course of study or training (including a post-graduate course of study or training) which would enable a student of such course or training to qualify himself for the grant of recognised dental qualification; or (b) no authority or institution conducting a course of study or training (including a post-graduate course of study or training) for grant of recognised dental qualification shall (i) open a new or higher course of study or training (including a post-graduate course of study or training) which would enable a student of such course or training to qualify himself for the award of any recognised dental qualification; or (ii) increase its admission capacity in any course of study or training (including a postgraduate course of study or training), except with the previous permission of the Central Government obtained in accordance with the provisions of this section. 13. Section 20 of the Act deals with power to make regulations. As per sub-section (1) of Section 20, the Council may, with the approval of the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, make regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act to carry out the purposes of this Chapter. As per sub-section (2) of Section 20, in particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power such regulations may provide for/prescribe the matters enumerated in clauses (a) to (i) of the said sub-rule. As per the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 20, regulations under clause (g), i.e., to prescribe the standard curricula for the training of dentists and dental hygienists, and the conditions for admission to courses of such training, and clause (h), i.e., to prescribe the standards of examinations and other requirements to be satisfied to secure for qualifications recognised under this Act, shall be made after consultation with State Governments. As per sub-section (4) of Section 20, every regulation made under this section shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made before each House of Parliament, while it is in session for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in making any modification in the regulation or both Houses agree that the regulation should not be made, the regulation shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so, however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that regulation. 14. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 10A, read with Section 20 of the Act, the 2nd respondent, with the previous approval of the Central Government, in supersession of the Establishment of New Dental Colleges, Opening of Higher Courses of Study and Increase of Admission Capacity in Dental Colleges Regulations, 1993 made the Dental Council of India (Establishment of New Dental Colleges, Opening of New or Higher Course of Study or Training and Increase of Admission Capacity in Dental Colleges) Regulations, 2006 (for brevity, 'the DCI Regulations, 2006'). Regulation 2 deals with applicability. As per Regulation 2, these regulations shall be applicable to the proposals relating to establishment of a new dental college at the undergraduate level; introduction of a new or higher course of study or training at the post-graduate level (diploma and degree both); and increase of admission capacity in a dental college at the undergraduate or post-graduate level, from the academic year 2006-07. 15. Regulation 4 deals with proposals or schemes for establishing a new dental college, or opening a new or higher course of study or training or increasing the admission capacity, in the dental college. 15. Regulation 4 deals with proposals or schemes for establishing a new dental college, or opening a new or higher course of study or training or increasing the admission capacity, in the dental college. As per sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 4, the proposals or schemes for establishing a new dental college, or opening a new or higher course of study or training or increasing the admission capacity, in the dental college, as the case may be, shall be made or submitted to the Central Government for obtaining its permission under the Act in the Form 1, Form 2 and Form 3, respectively, annexed to these regulations. As per sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 4, the scheme or the proposal under sub-regulation (1) shall be submitted and, processing thereof shall be made, within the time-schedule as provided in the Schedule annexed to these regulations. 16. Regulations 18 to 24 of the DCI Regulations, 2006 deals with permission of the Central Government to increase admission capacity in the dental college. Regulation 18 deals with application for increasing the admission capacity. As per Regulation 18, for increasing the admission capacity (number of seats) at the undergraduate or post-graduate level (degree or diploma), a dental college shall, subject to Regulation 19, submit to the Central Government the scheme in this regard in Form 3, as annexed, for obtaining its permission. Regulation 19 deals with deals with qualifying criteria. As per Regulation 19, a dental college shall qualify to apply under Regulation 18, if the conditions in clauses (a) to (e) are fulfilled. One of the qualifying criteria, as per clause (d) of Regulation 19 is the letter of University’s permission for increasing admission capacity at the dental college, valid for the entire duration of course, obtained by the applicant from the University to which it is affiliated; Regulation 19 reads thus; “19. One of the qualifying criteria, as per clause (d) of Regulation 19 is the letter of University’s permission for increasing admission capacity at the dental college, valid for the entire duration of course, obtained by the applicant from the University to which it is affiliated; Regulation 19 reads thus; “19. Qualifying Criteria.-A dental college shall qualify to apply under regulation 18, if the following conditions are fulfilled: (a) the dental qualification granted to the students of the college and in respect of which the capacity is sought to be increased is recognised with the existing admission capacity; (b) the requirements prescribed in respect of infrastructure facilities including staff are fulfilled by the College for the existing admission capacity as well as for the admission capacity desired: Provided that the requirements prescribed in respect of land and building shall not apply to the dental colleges established before the 25th day of September, 1993; (c) the certificate regarding feasibility and desirability for increasing admission capacity at the dental college has been obtained by the applicant from the State Government or the Union territory administration, as the case may be; the same is not required for increasing admission capacity in postgraduate course/s; (d) letter of University’s permission for increasing admission capacity at the dental college, valid for the entire duration of course, has been obtained by the applicant from the University to which it is affiliated; and (e) the provision for financial allocation for additional equipments and other infrastructural facilities and for recruitment of additional staff as per the norms prescribed by the Council in this regard are made.” 17. Regulation 20 deals with submission of the application in Form 3 and the application fee. As per sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 20, the application containing the scheme for increasing admission capacity in the dental college, as referred to in Regulation 18, shall be submitted by the dental college to the Secretary (Health), Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, Nirman Bhawan, Maulana Azad Road, New Delhi-110011 on or before the prescribed date along with the prescribed non-refundable application fee in the form of Demand Draft/Pay Order in favour of Dental Council of India, payable at Delhi. The fee shall include registration fee for technical scrutiny and fee for two inspections and contingent expenditure. The fee shall include registration fee for technical scrutiny and fee for two inspections and contingent expenditure. As per sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 20, incomplete application or scheme will not be accepted and will be returned by the Central Government to the applicant along with enclosures and processing fee. As per sub-regulation (3) of Regulation 20, application submitted under this regulation, if found complete in all respects, will be forwarded to the Council within 30 days of the receipt of such application for evaluation and recommendations. Acceptance of such application or scheme will, under no circumstances, mean approval of the application for grant of permission. 18. Regulation 21 of the DCI Regulations, 2006 deals with evaluation of scheme for increasing admission capacity by the Council; Regulation 22 deals with report of the Council; and Regulation 23 deals with grant of permission, by the Central Government, for increasing the admission capacity in a dental college. As already noticed, as per sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 4, the submission of the scheme or the proposal for establishing a new dental college, or opening a new or higher course of study or training or increasing the admission capacity in the dental college, under sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 4 and, processing thereof, shall be within the time-schedule as provided in the Schedule annexed to these regulations. The Time Schedule for receipt of applications for opening of higher courses of study/increase of Post Graduate seats/renewal of permission and processing of the applications by the Central Government and the Dental Council of India, in the Schedule annexed to the DCI Regulations, 2006, substituted by the Dental Council of India (Establishment of New Dental Colleges, Opening of New or Higher Course of Study or Training and Increase of Admission Capacity in Dental Colleges) (8th Amendment) Regulations, 2016, which was published in the Gazette of India on 11.03.2016, is extracted hereunder; TIME SCHEDULE FOR RECEIPT OF APPLICATION FOR OPENING OF HIGHER COURSES OF STUDY/INCREASE OF POST GRADUATE SEATS/RENEWAL OF PERMISSION AND PROCESSING OF THE APPLICATIONS BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA Sl.No. Stage of Processing Last Date 1. Receipt of applications by the Central Government. Between 15th March to 7th April (both days inclusive of any year). 2. Forwarding of applications by the Central Government to Dental Council of India. By 30th April. 3. Technical Scrutiny, assessment and Recommendations by the Dental Council of India. Receipt of applications by the Central Government. Between 15th March to 7th April (both days inclusive of any year). 2. Forwarding of applications by the Central Government to Dental Council of India. By 30th April. 3. Technical Scrutiny, assessment and Recommendations by the Dental Council of India. By 15th October. 4. Receipt of reply/ compliance from the applicant by the Central Government and for personal hearing thereto, if any and forwarding of compliance by the Central Government to the Dental Council of India. Two months from receipt of recommendation from DCI but not after 15th November. 5. Final recommendations by the Dental Council of India. By 31st January. 6. Issue of Letter of Permission by the Central Government. By 28th February. 7. Commencement of academic session/term 1st May. 8. Last date upto which students can be admitted/Joined against stray vacancies arising due to any reason. By 31st May Note: 1. In case of renewal permission, the applicants shall submit the application to the Dental Council of India by 30th April. 2. The time schedule indicated above may be modified by the Central Government, for reasons to be recorded in writing, in respect of any class or category of applications. 19. As already noticed, as per sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act, every regulation made by the Council under Section 20 shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made before each House of Parliament, in the manner provided in that sub-section. As provided in Note 2 to the Time Schedule substituted by the DCI 8th Amendment Regulations, 2016, the time schedule indicated above may be modified by the Central Government, for reasons to be recorded in writing, in respect of any class or category of applications. 20. The power conferred on the Central Government under Note 2 to the Time Schedule substituted by the DCI 8th Amendment Regulations, 2016 is only to modify the time schedule indicated in the Schedule to the DCI Regulations, 2006, by modifying the 'last date' specified in the Time Schedule, for receipt applications or for different stages of processing of applications for opening of higher courses of study/increase of Post Graduate seats/renewal of permission by the Central Government and the Dental Council of India. In case the last date specified in the Time Schedule for receipt of applications by the Central Government is extended by the Central Government, in exercise of its powers under Note 2 to the Time Schedule, the Central Government shall receive an application or scheme for opening of higher courses of study/ increase of Post Graduate seats/renewal of permission on or before that extended date, in case that application or scheme is complete in all respect. In view of the provisions under sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 20, the Central Government shall not accept an incomplete application or scheme for opening of higher courses of study/increase of Post Graduate seats/renewal of permission incomplete, which the Central Government shall return to the applicant along with enclosures and processing fee. The application submitted under Regulation 20, if found complete in all respects, alone shall be forwarded to the Council, within the time limit of 30 days of the receipt of such application, for evaluation and recommendations, as provided under sub-regulation (3) of Regulation 20. 21. In Dental Council of India v. S.R.M. Institute of Science and Technology [ (2004) 9 SCC 676 ] the Apex Court, in the context of the Establishment of New Dental Colleges, Opening of Higher Courses of Study and Increase of Admission Capacity in Dental Colleges Regulations, 1993 held that, in cases of recognition of dental colleges or starting of higher courses, the regulations framed by the Dental Council of India are of mandatory character and have got to be complied with, as held in Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka [ (2003) 6 SCC 697 ]; State of Maharashtra v. Indian Medical Association [ (2002) 1 SCC 589 ]; etc. When that is the position in law, the High Court ought not have made an interim order to process the application even in the absence of the permission or essentiality certificate because the application will not be complete without being accompanied by permission or essentiality certificate by the State Government along with certain other documents. An incomplete application cannot be processed either by the Central Government or the Dental Council. The argument advanced on behalf of the respondents will set at naught the law that in certain cases, the courts need not insist on production of permission or essentiality certificate of the State Government, particularly, when the regulations insist upon the same. An incomplete application cannot be processed either by the Central Government or the Dental Council. The argument advanced on behalf of the respondents will set at naught the law that in certain cases, the courts need not insist on production of permission or essentiality certificate of the State Government, particularly, when the regulations insist upon the same. To decide such a matter even in the absence of the Dental Council and the State Government as if they have no role to play in the matter is only to bypass the law, when statutory duties have been assigned and each one of those authorities have got separate roles to play. It may be that the Government of India takes the ultimate decision in the matter but to state that these authorities only aid the Government of India and hence it is not necessary to make them a party to the proceedings is not at all appropriate or acceptable. 22. In Educare Charitable Trust v. Union of India [(2013) 16 SCC 474], in the context of the Dental Council of India (Establishment of New Dental Colleges, Opening of New or Higher Course of Study or Training and Increase of Admission Capacity in Dental Colleges) Regulations, 2006 the Apex Court held that, as per Regulation 18, the applicant has to submit application in Form 3 when it wants to increase of seats. The qualifying criteria is laid down in Regulation 19 and as per clause (a) thereof, it is mandatory that the college is recognised with the existing admission capacity. The High Court held that, as this condition was not fulfilled by the petitioner, it was not possible for the Central Government to forward the application to the DCI for technical scrutiny. In these circumstances, if the Central Government did not exercise its discretion to modify the time schedule, in terms of Note (2) of the Regulations, direction could not be issued to the Central Government to exercise that power in a particular manner as it was purely within the discretion of the Central Government and the Central Government refused to exercise the discretion for valid reason. Before the Apex Court, it was argued that, in the absence of any fault of the petitioner and when the petitioner has taken all steps well within time, it was a fit case for exercising discretion by the Central Government and non-exercise of such a discretion was clearly arbitrary. The Apex Court held that, the Regulations, 2006 are framed by the Dental Council of India, with the previous approval of the Central Government, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 10A, read with Section 20 of the Dentists Act. The Regulations, 2006 thus have statutory force. These Regulations deal with the procedure for obtaining permission of the Central Government to establish new dental college, for starting new or higher courses or training in a dental college as well as for increase in admission capacity in a dental college. Regulation 18 deals with 'permission of the Central Government to increase admission capacity in the dental college'. Under Regulation 18, the applicant, a dental college desirous to increase the admission capacity has to make requisite application in Form 3. Regulation 19 lays down the qualifying criteria and the conditions which are to be necessarily fulfilled to enable that college to apply under Regulation 18. As per Regulation 20, application is to be submitted in Form 3 and the application fee with the particulars mentioned in the said Regulation. It is clear from the above that Regulation 18 is made subject to Regulation 19. Regulation 19 states, in no uncertain terms, that a dental college 'shall qualify to apply under Regulation 18' if the conditions stipulated in Regulation 19 are fulfilled. It clearly follows that a dental college which does not satisfy the conditions laid down in Regulation 19 is not qualified to make an application under Regulation 18. Clause (a) of Regulation 19 lays down a specific condition, namely existing admission capacity should be recognised. Admittedly, as on the date of application, the petitioner did not have this recognition and thus, it did not fulfill the stipulations contained in clause (a) of Regulation 19. In the absence thereof, it was not qualified to make the application. It, thus, clearly follow that on the date of application, i.e., 08.08.2012, the application was incomplete. As per sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 20 incomplete application or scheme can be returned by the Central Government to the applicant. 23. In the absence thereof, it was not qualified to make the application. It, thus, clearly follow that on the date of application, i.e., 08.08.2012, the application was incomplete. As per sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 20 incomplete application or scheme can be returned by the Central Government to the applicant. 23. In Educare Charitable Trust, the Apex Court was dealing with a case in which, on 08.08.2012, the petitioner had submitted the scheme to the Government of India for increasing the admission capacity. This request of the petitioner was considered but the Central Government could not process the same as, at the time of submission of the application, the petitioner had yet to get the recognition of BDS course with 50 seats, i.e., the existing capacity, which is a precondition for forwarding the application. The Central Government had issued various letters, last of which was dated 19.12.2012, asking the petitioner to obtain the recognition. Last date for forwarding the application by the Central Government to the Dental Council of India for approval of such scheme was 31.12.2012. Since the petitioner could not bring the said 'essential documents' even upto the last date, i.e., 31.12.2012, the Central Government returned the application with liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh in the next academic year, i.e., 2014-15. In Para 14 of the decision, the Apex Court observed that, no doubt, instead of returning the application, the Central Government gave chances to the petitioner to obtain the recognition from the Dental Council of India and furnish the same to it. The learned counsel for the petitioner may be correct, to some extent, that had such a recommendation been forwarded by the Dental Council of India before December 2012, probably Central Government would have acted thereupon. 24. In Educare Charitable Trust the Apex Court noticed that, as per Regulation 4 of the DCI Regulations, 2006, the scheme or proposal has to be submitted within the time frame as appended in the Schedule annexed to the said Regulations. As per the aforesaid time schedule, the applicant college desirous of increasing the admission capacity is to submit the application from 1st August to 30th September. This was done by the petitioner. However, what was found that the petitioner was not meeting the qualifying criteria as on that date because with respect to existing admission capacity, it had not been recognised so far. This was done by the petitioner. However, what was found that the petitioner was not meeting the qualifying criteria as on that date because with respect to existing admission capacity, it had not been recognised so far. The applications are to be forwarded by the Central Government, once they are found to be in order and meeting the qualifying criteria laid down in Regulation 19, by 31st October in respect of BDS course. The said time limit was extended upto 31st December in the year 2012. After an application is forwarded to the Dental Council of India, the Council is supposed to evaluate the scheme for increasing admission capacity as per the procedure laid down in Regulation 21, which lays down that the Council is required to ascertain the desirability and prima facie feasibility for increasing the admission capacity at the dental college. It is also required to satisfy itself about the capability of the dental college to provide necessary resources and infrastructure for the scheme. The Council is even required to conduct physical inspection of the college before forming an opinion as to whether the applicant satisfies the condition of feasibility of increasing the admission capacity. This process, naturally, is time consuming. As per the time schedule referred to above, time upto 15th June is given for the Council to make recommendation to the Central Government. Such a report containing its recommendation is to be given in terms of Regulation 22. Thereafter, Central Government is required to go into the said recommendation and if it is found that applicant college deserves the permission to increase the admission capacity, letter of permission is to be issued by 15th July. The said time frame is to ensure timely admissions of students. The Apex Court noticed that, in the schedule annexed to the DCI Regulations, 2006, six to eight months time is given to the Council to look into the feasibility of the scheme as per the requirements contained in Regulation 21. The Apex Court held that the High Court did not commit any error in holding that in the given circumstances mandamus could not be issued to the Central Government to exercise its discretionary powers in a particular manner to modify the time schedule. 25. The Apex Court held that the High Court did not commit any error in holding that in the given circumstances mandamus could not be issued to the Central Government to exercise its discretionary powers in a particular manner to modify the time schedule. 25. In Royal Medical Trust v. Union of India [ (2014) 14 SCC 675 ], a decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Apex Court was dealing with a case in which the appellant, desirous of establishing a new medical college, approached the State Government for grant of the essentiality certificate. On 13.09.2010, the State Government issued the essentiality certificate valid for making an application to the Central Government for academic years 2011-12 and 2012-13. Thereafter, in order to comply with the requirements of Section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act, the appellant filed an application dated 06.05.2012 before the Kerala University of Health Sciences, to obtain affiliation certificate, before making an application before the Central Government. On 14.06.2012 the University required the appellant to submit the essentiality certificate from the State Government for the year 2013-14 and a certificate from the Revenue officials stating that the proposed land area is a single plot. The appellant furnished the essentiality certificate dated 16.08.2012 issued by the State Government dated 16-8-2012, for the academic years 2013-14 and 2014-15, on the even date. However, the University did not issue the affiliation certificate well in time, i.e., before 31-8-2012. Therefore, the appellant was constrained to submit the application under Section 10A(2)(a) of the Act to the Central Government, on 20.08.2012, without the affiliation certificate, which was referred to the Board of Governors of Medical Council of India for the purpose of its remarks and recommendations, on 28.08.2012. After the deadline for application for the academic year 2013-14, the University issued the affiliation certificate, which was sought for by the appellant, on 01.11.2012, whereafter the appellant supplied the same to the Medical Council of India for its consideration. However, the Council rejected the application for academic year 2013-14 on the ground, inter alia, that the application filed by the appellant though submitted in time was incomplete application in terms of the various statutory regulations due to non-submission of affiliation certificate on 08.10.2012. Aggrieved by the action of the Council, the appellant filed W.P.(C) No.1549 of 2013, on 14.01.2013, which ended in dismissal by the judgment dated 26.02.2013. Aggrieved by the action of the Council, the appellant filed W.P.(C) No.1549 of 2013, on 14.01.2013, which ended in dismissal by the judgment dated 26.02.2013. The appellant filed W.A.No.671 of 2013 before the Division Bench, which ended in dismissal, by the judgment dated 27.05.2013, affirming the view that the application filed by the appellant was an incomplete application in terms of statutory regulations and therefore, the Council was justified in not registering that application. The correctness of that judgment was called in question by the appellant before the Apex Court. 26. Royal Medical Trust [ (2014) 14 SCC 675 ] the Apex Court noticed that, it is neither in dispute nor can it be disputed by the Council that the appellant had filed an application before the University for grant of affiliation certificate well in time. It is apparent from the record that the said affiliation certificate was not furnished to the appellant in time in spite of sending reminders to the University to furnish the affiliation certificate, inter alia, bringing to its notice the urgency involved in the matter. For reasons best known to it, the University did not furnish the said certificate to the appellant. This prompted the appellant to make an application before the Central Government for registration of its application lest the cut-off dates prescribed by the statutory regulations would have expired and the appellant in that case would have been remediless in light of the dictum laid down in Mridul Dhar (5) v. Union of India [ (2005) 2 SCC 65 ] and Priya Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh [ (2012) 7 SCC 433 ] requiring strict adherence to the said prescribed deadlines. The appellant mindful of the aforesaid directions had applied in due time adhering to the statutory timelines. Its application in terms of necessary documents was in fact complete but for the affiliation certificate from the University, which was awaited by the appellant even after several reminders for its issuance to the University pressing upon the urgency of the matter. The appellant mindful of the aforesaid directions had applied in due time adhering to the statutory timelines. Its application in terms of necessary documents was in fact complete but for the affiliation certificate from the University, which was awaited by the appellant even after several reminders for its issuance to the University pressing upon the urgency of the matter. Since the appellant was not at fault but constrained due to the delay on the part of the University, the Council was expected to have appropriately considered the facts and circumstances of the case pleaded by the appellant and thereafter, reached a conclusion one way or the other on its merits, instead of functioning in such mechanical manner by rejecting the application filed by the appellant and, thereafter, forwarding it to the Central Government with its adverse recommendations. This aspect of the matter ought to have been noticed by the writ court in writ petition as well as the writ appeal. Since that has not been done, the Apex Court held that the impugned judgment and order in W.A.No.671 of 2013 dated 27.05.2013 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, while allowing the appeal, the Apex Court we direct the Council to register the application for the academic year 2013-2014 and thereafter, proceed with the matter on its merits in accordance with Act and Rules thereto, within 15 day's time from the date of order. It was also order that the higher authority, after receipt of the recommendations made by the Council, will act upon such recommendations and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a month's time from the date of order. 27. In Royal Medical Trust v. Union of India [ (2015) 10 SCC 19 ] the Apex Court noticed that, Section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 contemplates submission of a scheme to the Central Government in prescribed form, which scheme is then to be referred by the Central Government to the Medical Council of India for its appropriate recommendations. The scheme is to be considered having regard to the features referred to in sub-section (7) and is then placed before the Central Government along with the recommendations of the Council. The scheme is to be considered having regard to the features referred to in sub-section (7) and is then placed before the Central Government along with the recommendations of the Council. In exercise of powers conferred by Section 10A read with Section 33 of the Act, the Medical Council of India with the previous sanction of the Central Government has made the Establishment of the Medical College Regulations, 1999 which were published in the Gazette of India on 28.08.1999. Para 3 lays down that no person shall establish a medical college except after obtaining prior permission of the Central Government by submitting a scheme. The Regulations then deal with the scheme in extenso. Clauses 1 and 2 of the scheme deal with 'eligibility criteria' and 'qualifying criteria' respectively. Clause 3 then sets out certain requirement in parts (i), (ii) and (iii) concerning various details about the status of the applicant in terms of the eligibility criteria, name and address of the medical college including various facets of the infrastructure and planning and the details of the existing hospital including availability of various facilities and capacities as also upgradation and expansion programme. Para.7 of the Regulations deals with report of the Medical Council of India, while Para.8 deals with grant of permission by the Central Government. The Schedule to the Regulations sets out various stages dealing with processing of applications preferred by the medical colleges and how the matter is to be dealt with at various stages, which has undergone changes over a period of time. The Regulations were further amended by Amendment Notification dated 21.09.2012, which was published in the Gazette of India on 01.10.2012. It substituted the Schedule and added a Note. As per the Note, the time schedule indicated Schedule may be modified by the Central Government, for reasons to be recorded in writing, in respect of any class or category of applications. 28. In Royal Medical Trust the Apex Court held that, the Medical Council of India and the Central Government have been vested with monitoring powers under Section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the Establishment of the Medical College Regulations, 1999. It is expected of these authorities to discharge their functions well within the statutory confines as well as in conformity with the Schedule to the Regulations. It is expected of these authorities to discharge their functions well within the statutory confines as well as in conformity with the Schedule to the Regulations. The Medical Council of India and the Central Government must therefore show due diligence right from the day when the applications are received. The Schedule giving various stages and time limits must accommodate every possible eventuality and at the same time must comply with the requirements of observance of natural justice at various levels. The Schedule must ideally take care of: (A) Initial assessment of the application at the first level should comprise of checking necessary requirements such as essentiality certificate, consent for affiliation and physical features like land and hospital requirement. If an applicant fails to fulfill these requirements, the application on the face of it, would be incomplete and be rejected. Those who fulfill the basic requirements would be considered at the next stage. (B) Inspection should then be conducted by the Inspectors of the Medical Council of India. By very nature such inspection must have an element of surprise. Therefore sufficient time of about three to four months ought to be given to the Medical Council of India to cause inspection at any time and such inspection should normally be undertaken latest by January. Surprise Inspection would ensure that the required facilities and infrastructure are always in place and not borrowed or put in temporarily. (C) Intimation of the result or outcome of the inspection would then be communicated. If the infrastructure and facilities are in order, the concerned Medical College should be given requisite permission/renewal. However if there are any deficiencies or shortcomings, the Medical Council of India must, after pointing out the deficiencies, grant to the college concerned sufficient time to report compliance. (D) If compliance is reported and the applicant states that the deficiencies stand removed, the Medical Council of India must cause compliance verification. It is possible that such compliance could be accepted even without actual physical verification but that assessment be left entirely to the discretion of the Medical Council of India and the Central Government. In cases where actual physical verification is required, the Medical Council of India and the Central Government must cause such verification before the deadline. (E) The result of such verification if positive in favour of the Medical College concerned, the applicant ought to be given requisite permission/renewal. In cases where actual physical verification is required, the Medical Council of India and the Central Government must cause such verification before the deadline. (E) The result of such verification if positive in favour of the Medical College concerned, the applicant ought to be given requisite permission/renewal. But if the deficiencies still persist or had not been removed, the applicant will stand disentitled so far as that academic year is concerned. 29. In Royal Medical Trust, on the facts of the cases in hand, the Apex Court noticed that, the Central Government did not choose to extend the time limits in the Schedule despite being empowered by Note below the Schedule. Though the Central Government apparently felt constrained by the directions in Priya Gupta it did exercise that power in favour of Government Medical Colleges. The decision of this Court in Priya Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh [ (2012) 7 SCC 433 ] undoubtedly directed that Schedule to the Regulations must be strictly and scrupulously observed. However, subsequent to that decision, the Regulations stood amended, incorporating a Note empowering the Central Government to modify the stages and time limits in the Schedule to the Regulations. The effect of similar such empowerment and consequential exercise of power as expected from the Central Government has been considered by the Court in Priyadarshini Dental College and Hospital v. Union of India [ (2011) 4 SCC 623 ]. The Central Government is thus statutorily empowered to modify the Schedule in respect of class or category of applicants, for reasons to be recorded in writing. Because of the subsequent amendment and incorporation of Note as aforesaid, the matter is required to be seen in the light of and in accord with Priyadarshini where similar Note in pari materia Regulations was considered by the Court. The Apex Court held that the directions in Priya Gupta must now be understood in the light of such statutory empowerment and the Apex Court declared that it is open to the Central Government, in terms of the Note, to extend or modify the time limits in the Schedule to the Regulations. The Apex Court held that the directions in Priya Gupta must now be understood in the light of such statutory empowerment and the Apex Court declared that it is open to the Central Government, in terms of the Note, to extend or modify the time limits in the Schedule to the Regulations. However the deadline, namely, 30th of September for making admissions to the first MBBS course as laid down by the Court in Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh [ (2002) 7 SCC 258 ] and Mridul Dhar v. Union of India [ (2005) 2 SCC 65 ] must always be observed. 30. In Royal Medical Trust, the challenge was against the communications issued by the Central Government recommending disapproval of applications made in respect of the medical colleges of the applicants, for the academic year 2014-2015, for establishing new medical colleges/for increase of admission capacity MBBS course/renewal of permission granted in the previous academic year. After conducting inspection of the respective medical colleges the Medical Council of India had found infirmities or inadequacies in the infrastructure, facilities and faculty. The respective applicants then claimed that they had rectified the shortcomings and asked for compliance verification. But the Central Government and/or the Medical Council of India refused to undertake any fresh inspection for verification, for want of adequate time. In so far as the initial assessment of the application is concerned, the Apex Court has stated in categorical terms, in Para.31 of the judgment in Royal Medical Trust [@ page 47 SCC] that, the initial assessment of the application at the first level should comprise of checking necessary requirements such as essentiality certificate, consent for affiliation and physical features like land and hospital requirement. If an applicant fails to fulfill these requirements, the application on the face of it, would be incomplete and be rejected. Those who fulfill the basic requirements would be considered at the next stage. 31. If an applicant fails to fulfill these requirements, the application on the face of it, would be incomplete and be rejected. Those who fulfill the basic requirements would be considered at the next stage. 31. In D.Y. Patil Medical College v. Medical Council of India [ (2015) 10 SCC 51 ], in the context of the qualification criteria prescribed in the Medical Council of India Opening of New or Higher Course of Study or Training (Including Postgraduate Course of Study or Training) and Increase of Admission Capacity in Any Course of Study or Training (Including Postgraduate Course of Study or Training) Regulations, 2000 and also the Time Schedule prescribed in the Medical Council of India Establishment of New Medical College Regulations, 1999, the Apex Court held that, it is apparent from the decisions in S.R.M. Institute of Science and Technology [ (2004) 9 SCC 676 ], Educare Charitable Trust [(2013) 16 SCC 474] and Royal Medical Trust [ (2015) 10 SCC 19 ] and the Regulations that the application at the first instance is required to be complete and incomplete applications are liable to be reliable to be rejected. In D.Y. Patil Medical College the Apex Court was dealing with a case in which the application for increase of admission capacity was admittedly incomplete when it was filed. Though there is a dispute whether it was filed before 31.08.2014, it was submitted on behalf of the Medical Council of India that it was filed on 02.09.2014. The Apex Court observed that, even assuming that it was filed before 31.08.2014, admittedly it was an incomplete application as the essentiality certificate issued by the Government of Maharashtra was not enclosed along with the application form, due to which application came to be rejected and delay has taken place for which the petitioner has to blame itself. 32. In Medical Council of India v. V.N. Public Health and Education Trust [ (2016) 11 SCC 216 ] the Apex Court reiterated the law laid down in D.Y. Patil Medical College [ (2015) 10 SCC 51 ], Educare Charitable Trust [(2013) 16 SCC 474] and Royal Medical Trust [ (2015) 10 SCC 19 ]. The Apex Court noticed that, in D.Y. Patil Medical College the controversy had arisen due to rejection of the application of the institution on the ground that essentiality certificate was not filed along with the application form. The Apex Court noticed that, in D.Y. Patil Medical College the controversy had arisen due to rejection of the application of the institution on the ground that essentiality certificate was not filed along with the application form. The Court dwelled upon the principles stated in Educare Charitable Trust and Royal Medical Trust and various other decisions and, after analysing the scheme of the Act held that, the application at the first instance is required to be complete and incomplete applications are liable to be rejected. Therefore, there has to be an inspection and other stages of decision making process. On the facts of the case on hand, the Apex Court noticed that, the application for grant of approval was filed with the essentiality certificate which was a conditional one and, therefore, a defective one. It was not an essentiality certificate in law. In such a situation, the High Court could not have directed for consideration of the application for the purpose of the inspection. Such a direction runs counter to the law laid down in Educare Charitable Trust and Royal Medical Trust. On the date of the application, the essentiality certificate was not in order. The Schedule prescribed by the Medical Council of India, which had been approved by this Court, is binding on all concerned. The Medical Council of India cannot transgress it. The High Court could not have gone beyond the same and issued any direction for conducting an inspection for the academic year 2016-17. Therefore, the Apex Court held that, the directions issued by the learned single Judge and the affirmation thereof by the Division Bench are wholly unsustainable. 33. In State of Kerala v. V.N. Public Health and Education Trust [Civil Appeal Nos.2920 of 2020 and 2921 of 2020, Order dated 07.08.2020] a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court was considering a case in which the 1st respondent Trust filed W.P.(C) No.27266 of 2019 questioning Ext.P6 communication by which the State Government expressed its inability to consider the request made to issue essentiality certificate to establish medical colleges in the private sector in Palakkad district. A learned Single Judge, vide judgment dated 19.11.2019, quashed Ext.P6 communication and directed the Government to issue an essentiality certificate in the proforma on or before 30.11.2019. A learned Single Judge, vide judgment dated 19.11.2019, quashed Ext.P6 communication and directed the Government to issue an essentiality certificate in the proforma on or before 30.11.2019. It was also directed that the Medical Council of India shall accept the essentiality certificate issued by the State Government, in terms of the judgment, as one received on time. That judgment was affirmed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.2443 of 2020. Civil Appeal No.2920 of 2020 arises out of those judgments. The 1st respondent Trust filed another writ petition, i.e., W.P.(C) No.29098 of 2019 challenging the decision taken by the Kerala University of Health Sciences, rejecting the request to grant consent for affiliation. In that writ petition the prayer for interim relief against refusal to grant the consent for affiliation was rejected by the learned Single Judge, as per the order dated 31.10.2019. The 1st respondent Trust filed yet another writ petition, i.e., W.P. (C) No.34275 of 2019 with a prayer to direct the Medical Council of India and Government of India to process the application filed by the Trust without insisting for the essentiality certificate or the consent for affiliation. By the order dated 13.12.2019, the learned Single Judge allowed that interim relief. Civil Appeal No.2921 of 2020 arises out of that order. After considering the rival contentions, the Apex Court held that the order dated 13.12.2019 of the High Court in W.P.(C) No.34275 of 2019 is palpably illegal and could not have been passed, in view of the fact that, in case any order was to be solicited, it was to be passed by the Apex Court in the pending SLP, out of which C.A.No.2920 of 2020 arises. It was absolutely improper for the High Court to pass such an order directing the Medical Council of India to process the application without consent for affiliation granted by the University and essentiality certificate granted by the State Government. Both directions were illegal. It is pre-requisite for the Medical Council of India to process any application that the essentiality certificate and consent for affiliation are produced. Apart from that, pursuant to the refusal to grant consent for affiliation, W.P.(C) No.29098 of 2019 was filed. That was pending consideration. The High Court declined the interim order. The filing of the third writ petition was uncalled for. Apart from that, pursuant to the refusal to grant consent for affiliation, W.P.(C) No.29098 of 2019 was filed. That was pending consideration. The High Court declined the interim order. The filing of the third writ petition was uncalled for. The High Court ought to have decided the issue of essentiality certificate for which W.P.(C) No.27266 of 2019 was filed with W.P. (C) No.29098 of 2019 regarding grant of consent for affiliation. The matter of permission to establish and/or recognition could not have been processed by the Medical Council of India/Government of India without essentiality as well as consent for affiliation. The Apex Court allowed the Civil Appeals filed by the State, by quashing the impugned interim order passed in W.P.(C) No.34275 of 2019 on 13.12.2019 and the judgment passed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.2443 of 2019 dated 5.12.2019, thereby affirming the order dated 19.11.2019 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 27266 of 2019. The Apex Court ordered that let the writ petitions, i.e., W.P.(C) Nos. 27266 of 2019 and 29098 of 2019, be decided analogous to avoid any conflicting decision as they are intertwined issues. As several considerations may be common, the grant of consent for affiliation and essentiality certificate may depend upon several factors. As per the guidelines of Government and of the University, various aspects are to be examined. By merely quashing of order based on policy, the grant of essentiality or consent for affiliation does not follow automatically. They have to be considered as per prevailing norms. The Apex Court noticed that the filing of third writ petition being W.P.(C) No.34275 of 2019 was uncalled for. No interim order could have been passed, giving final relief and that too on an impermissible basis. 34. In the instant case, Exts.P4 to P8 applications made by the petitioner for enhancement of intake in 5 MDS specialities, for the academic year 2021-22 are dated 28.07.2020 and the demand drafts for Rs.5,31,000/- each, enclosed along with those applications are dated 30.07.2020. The documents placed on record as Exts.P4 to P8 are, in fact, covering letters along with which the respective application in Form 3 and its enclosures were mailed to the additional 3rd respondent, which the said respondent forwarded to the 2nd respondent, along with Ext.R2(b) letter dated 10.08.2020, for evaluation and necessary action, for the academic year 2021-22. The documents placed on record as Exts.P4 to P8 are, in fact, covering letters along with which the respective application in Form 3 and its enclosures were mailed to the additional 3rd respondent, which the said respondent forwarded to the 2nd respondent, along with Ext.R2(b) letter dated 10.08.2020, for evaluation and necessary action, for the academic year 2021-22. As evident from Ext.R2(b) letter, as on 10.08.2020, the petitioner has not submitted physical/original application before the Central Government. Based on the decision of the Executive Committee of the Dental Council of India, in its meeting held on 02.09.2010, the petitioner was required by Ext.P9 letter dated 18.09.2020 of the 2nd respondent to submit letter of University's permission, valid for the entire duration of the MDS course, for increase of intake in 5 specialties, from the affiliating University, within 10 day. It is thereafter that the petitioner, for the first time, made Ext.P10 application dated 18.09.2020 before the 1st respondent University, seeking consent of affiliation. 35. In Exts.P4 to P8 covering letters along with which the respective application in Form 3 and its enclosures were mailed to the additional 3rd respondent, the petitioner has stated no reason for not obtaining the consent of affiliation from the 1st respondent University. As already noticed, it is averred in Para.4 of the writ petition that, the 1st respondent University refused to issue notification for the academic year 2021-22, calling for applications for enhancement of intake. It was in such circumstances and keeping in mind the time schedule set under the Dental Council of India Regulations that the petitioner preferred Exts.P4 to P8 applications, even in the absence of consent of affiliation from the 1st respondent University. 36. Chapter 21 of the Kerala University of Health Sciences First Statutes, 2013 deals with affiliation of Colleges. As per Statute 2, which deals with date of application, applications for affiliation of a college or for affiliation for additional seats or affiliation for enhancement of seats or for consent of affiliation shall be addressed to the Registrar, and shall be forwarded to him on or before the date fixed by the University from time to time. 37. As pointed out in the statement filed by the 1st respondent University, the University did not invite applications for affiliation for the academic year 2021-22. Normally this would have happened in December 2019. 37. As pointed out in the statement filed by the 1st respondent University, the University did not invite applications for affiliation for the academic year 2021-22. Normally this would have happened in December 2019. The petitioner did not challenge the said decision of the University. During the course of argument, the learned Standing Counsel for the University has pointed out Notification No.25494/ACI/GEN.A2/2020/KUHS dated 27.08.2020 issued by the 1st respondent University, as per which, in accordance with Kerala University of Health Sciences Act, 2010 and in conformity with Decision No.60.08 of the 60th Governing Council meeting held on 25.07.2020, applications are invited for starting new colleges/additional courses / enhancement of seats for the academic year 2021-22 (for Nursing, Pharmacy, Para medical & Allied Health Science courses) and for the year 2022-2023 (for Medical & Dental courses) as detailed below; “Medical : starting new / increase of seats in PG Medical Degree/ Superspeciality courses. Dental : Starting / enhancement of PG seats in existing affiliated dental colleges. Nursing : Starting new colleges / additional courses /enhancement of seats in UG and PG courses Pharmacy: (i) Starting of additional courses/enhancement of seats in UG / PG courses in existing affiliated pharmacy institutions. (ii) Starting new degree courses in Government Institutions / institutions having PCI approval for starting UG courses. Paramedical & Allied Health Science : Starting of new colleges / courses / enhancement of seats (UG/PG) in Paramedical institutions attached to medical colleges.” As per the notification dated 27.08.2020, all Institutions should satisfy the norms fixed by the Apex Council concerned (if any), Government of Kerala and also the Kerala University of Health Sciences. The applications are to be submitted online and the online facility will be available in the University web site www. kuhs.ac.in. The application fee should be remitted through online and the rates of fee for Government colleges and Self Financing Colleges will be as per U.O.No.9038/2019/AC1/Gen.A2/KUHS dated 22.11.2019. The last date for submission of online application with requisite documents and fee is 31.12.2020. 37. The fact that the 1st respondent University did not invite applications for affiliation for Medical and Dental courses for the academic year 2021-22 is not in dispute. The petitioner has not chosen to challenge the said action of the University, at appropriate time, by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 38. The fact that the 1st respondent University did not invite applications for affiliation for Medical and Dental courses for the academic year 2021-22 is not in dispute. The petitioner has not chosen to challenge the said action of the University, at appropriate time, by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 38. In Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh [ (1977) 4 SCC 145 ], a Three- Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction. 39. In Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder Lal Jain [ (2008) 2 SCC 280 ] the Apex Court held that in order that a writ of mandamus may be issued, there must be a legal right with the party asking for the writ to compel the performance of some statutory duty cast upon the authorities. In the said decision, the Apex Court noticed that the principles on which a writ of mandamus can be issued have been stated in ‘The Law of Extraordinary Legal Remedies’ by F.G. Ferris and F.G. Ferris, Jr. that, mandamus is, subject to the exercise of a sound judicial discretion, the appropriate remedy to enforce a plain, positive, specific and ministerial duty presently existing and imposed by law upon officers and others who refuse or neglect to perform such duty, when there is no other adequate and specific legal remedy and without which there would be a failure of justice. 40. In State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra [ (1996) 9 SCC 309 ] the Apex Court held that under the Constitution a mandamus can be issued by the Court when the applicant establishes that he has a legal right to performance of legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and said right was subsisting on the date of the petition. The duty that may be enjoined by mandamus may be one imposed by the Constitution or a Statute or by Rules or orders having the force of law. But no mandamus can be issued to direct the Government to refrain from enforcing the provisions of law or to do something which is contrary to law. 41. In Bhaskara Rao A.B. v. CBI [ (2011) 10 SCC 259 ] the Apex Court reiterated that, generally, no court has competence to issue a direction contrary to law nor can the Court direct an authority to act in contravention of the statutory provisions. The Courts are meant to enforce the rule of law and not to pass the orders or directions which are contrary to what has been injected by law. 42. Having failed to challenge, at appropriate time, the action of the 1st respondent University in not inviting applications for affiliation for Medical and Dental courses, for the academic year 2021-22, the petitioner cannot seek a writ of mandamus commending the 1st respondent University to consider Ext.P10 application for consent of affiliation, for additional intake in 5 MDS specialties, for the academic year 2021-22. 43. In Principal, Educare Institute of Dental Sciences v. Kerala University of Health and Sciences [W.A.No.1987 of 2019 - Judgment dated 31.01.2020] a decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Division Bench of this Court was dealing with a case in which, after the rejection of applications made for starting MDS course in 3 specialties, for the academic year 2016-17, the appellant submitted Ext.P6 series of applications dated 28.12.2018 before the University for starting MDS course in 4 specialties, for the academic year 2019-20, after remitting the requisite fee by way of demand draft. Thereafter, the appellant submitted Exts.P7 series of applications before the Central Government. While so, the University as per Ext.P8 order dated 09.04.2019 rejected Ext.P6 series of applications, stating that it had not invited applications for starting new colleges or courses. As per the Schedule to the DCI Regulations, 2006 applications are to be submitted before the Central Government between 15th March to 7th April (both days inclusive), which have to be forwarded by the Central Government by 31st April. The appellant filed W.P. (C) No.15925 of 2019, on 11.06.2019, challenging Ext.P8 order. As per the Schedule to the DCI Regulations, 2006 applications are to be submitted before the Central Government between 15th March to 7th April (both days inclusive), which have to be forwarded by the Central Government by 31st April. The appellant filed W.P. (C) No.15925 of 2019, on 11.06.2019, challenging Ext.P8 order. The learned Single Judge though declined interference on Ext.P8, disposed of the writ petition by directing reconsideration of Ext.P6 series of applications, and pass orders on merits before February, 2020, in case the University does not publish the perspective plan or does not call for applications by January, 2020. The Division Bench of this Court, by judgment dated 13.01.2020, disposed of that writ appeal, taking note of the direction issued by the Dental Council of India, as per Ext.P9 dated 11.6.2019, whereby, the college is directed to rectify the deficiencies. By that judgment, the Division Bench permitted the petitioner to submit fresh applications along with the requisite fee for which the University shall open its portal for a period of five days from the date of judgment and the University shall consider the application taking into consideration of the aforesaid direction and pass appropriate orders within a further period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the online application. Therefore, the Division Bench was dealing with a case in which the application made by the appellant, before 31.12.2018, seeking consent of affiliation, for the academic year 2019-20, was rejected by the University by Ext.P8 order, which was challenged before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.15925 of 2019, on 11.06.2019. 44. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Dental Council of India [ (2004) 9 SCC 676 ], Educare Charitable Trust [(2013) 16 SCC 474], Royal Medical Trust [ (2015) 10 SCC 19 ], D.Y. Patil Medical College [ (2015) 10 SCC 51 ] and V.N. Public Health and Education Trust [ (2016) 11 SCC 216 ], the Central Government shall forward an application or scheme submitted by a dental college for increase of admission capacity in Post Graduate level to the Dental Council of India for technical scrutiny, only if the college has fulfilled the qualifying criteria laid down in Regulation 19 of the DCI Regulations, 2006. If the college fails to fulfil the qualifying criteria, the application, on the face of it would be incomplete, which has to be returned by the Central Government to the college concerned. In view of the law laid down by a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in V.N. Public Health and Education Trust [Civil Appeal Nos.2920 of 2020 and 2921 of 2020] the Central Government shall not forward an application submitted by a dental college for increase of admission capacity in Post Graduate level, to the Dental Council of India, without insisting consent of affiliation granted by the affiliating body, which is a pre-requisite for the Dental College of India to process such an application. 45. In Kerala Private Medical College Management Association v. Medical Council of India and others [W.A.No.1346 of 2020 -Judgment dated 15.10.2020] the Division Bench of this Court was dealing with an appeal preferred by the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.15607 of 2020, challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 16.09.2020, whereby that writ petition was dismissed holding that the application submitted by the members of the appellant association was not liable to be considered by the Medical Council of India, after the extended cut off date of 31.08.2020 and therefore, there is no requirement to direct the Kerala University of Health Sciences to consider the application submitted by the members of the appellant association for issue of consent of affiliation, for the academic year 2021-22. The Division Bench noticed that, the learned Single Judge after taking into account the submissions made by rival parties and taking into account the statement filed by the University has found that the schedule fixed by the Medical Council of India is guided by the direction of the Apex Court. Therefore, it is only those colleges, which have been able to submit the applications complete in all respects would be entitled to the benefit of extensions granted by the Medical Council of India and therefore, it was held that the reliefs sought for by the writ petitioner are against the directions of the Apex Court and as also the time line prescribed by the Medical Council of India. It is an admitted fact that, as per Ext.P2 public notice the Secretary General of the Medical Council of India informed that those colleges, who wish to apply for starting/ increase of seats in Post Graduate courses under Section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act, for the academic year 2021-22, are required to be submit application to the Secretary General, Medical Council of India, from 16.03.2020 to 07.04.2020 in the prescribed format. Ext.P2 public notice was issued on the basis of Ext.P3 amendment notification dated 04.04.2020 issued by the Board of Governors, in supersession of Medical Council of India, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, with the previous sanction of the Central Government, amending the MCI Regulations. The appellant has no case that the member colleges have submitted any application or has received the consent of affiliation from the University at any time before the finally extended time of 31.08.2020. Therefore, there was no deficiency on the part of the Medical Council of India/Board of Governors to consider any application or were bound to receive any application without the required documents. It is also clear from Exts.P2, P3 and P5 and further extension made upto 31.08.2020 that, the Medical Council of India/Board of Governors were not at liberty to receive any application after the cut off date. In that view of the matter, no manner of directions can be issued to the Medical Council of India, as sought for in the writ petition, to accept and process the applications preferred without the supporting documents envisaged in Ext.P2 guidelines. It was purely on the basis of Ext.P2 public notice dated 13.03.2020 inviting applications for the academic year 2021-22, which thus means the public notice was issued only inviting applications for the academic year 2021-22. Therefore, the contention put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant that a direction can be issued to the University to process the applications of the members of the appellant association enabling the member colleges to pursue the matter before the Medical Council of India/Board of Governors, cannot be sustained since the cut off date fixed by the Medical Council of India was over by 31.8.2020. Accordingly there was no reason for the writ court to issue any such direction to the University to consider applications submitted by the member colleges. Accordingly there was no reason for the writ court to issue any such direction to the University to consider applications submitted by the member colleges. If any direction as sought for by the appellant is granted, it would go against the spirit of Ext.P2 guidelines issued by the Medical Council of India/Board of Governors since the applications were invited only for the academic year 2021-22. Taking into account all the above aspects, the Division Bench declined interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the intra court appeal filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act. 46. As already held hereinbefore, having failed to challenge, at appropriate time, the action of the 1st respondent University in not inviting applications for affiliation for Medical and Dental courses, for the academic year 2021-22, the petitioner cannot seek a writ of mandamus commending the 1st respondent University to consider Ext.P10 application for consent of affiliation, for additional intake in 5 MDS specialties, for the academic year 2021-22. In such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought for in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.