ORDER : 1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 08.01.2021, by which, it has the effect of reducing the sanctioned intake of the institute viz. Nobel Homeopathic Medical College and Research Institute from 100 seats to 60 seats. The further prayer is to direct the respondents to permit the institute to impart education at the level of graduation in B.H.M.S. with intake of 100 seats for the academic year 2020-21. 2. The facts in brief are as under: 2.1 The Petitioner is a public trust. It inter alia runs a college in the name of Nobel Homeopathic Medical College and Research Institute (“College” for short). The College is engaged in imparting education in the discipline of Homeopathy at the level of graduation leading to the qualification of B.H.M.S. The College was established in the academic year 2017-18 with the intake capacity of 100 seats. 2.2 The College submitted the requisite details in the manner and within the time frame prescribed by the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 for extension of permission for the academic year 2020-21. This is not in dispute. 2.3 Thereafter, the College received from Respondent No. 1 the hearing notice dated 28th October, 2020. Vide this notice the College was called upon to render its explanation in writing in respect of the deficiencies alleged therein against the College and avail the opportunity of hearing before the Designated Hearing Committee of Respondent No. 1 on the date stipulated therein. 2.4 The College, thereupon, submitted its written submission supported by the documents dealing with the deficiencies alleged against it and also made oral submissions before the Designated Hearing Committee of Respondent No. 1. 2.5 Thereafter, the College was served with the impugned order dated 7th January, 2021 passed by Respondent No. 1. Vide this order the intake of the College for the academic year 2020-21 was reduced to 60 seats from 100 seats. 3. Mr.Dhaval Dave learned Senior Advocate appearing with Mr.Udit Vyas states that the impugned order passed by Respondent No. 1 is wholly unsustainable. In support of this contention, he made the following submissions: 3.1 The impugned order is a non-speaking order. No reasons are assigned for reducing the intake of the College from 100 seats to 60 seats. 3. Mr.Dhaval Dave learned Senior Advocate appearing with Mr.Udit Vyas states that the impugned order passed by Respondent No. 1 is wholly unsustainable. In support of this contention, he made the following submissions: 3.1 The impugned order is a non-speaking order. No reasons are assigned for reducing the intake of the College from 100 seats to 60 seats. 3.2 Realizing the aforesaid fatal lacuna in the impugned order, Respondent No. 1 attempted to supply reasons to the impugned order by filing an affidavit in reply. However, it is impermissible to supply reasons to the order for sustaining the order. He relied on the decision in case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation V/s Darus Shapur Chenai & Ors. reported in (2005) 7 SCC 627 – particularly paragraphs 24 to 27 thereof. 3.3 Without prejudice to the aforesaid, even if the deficiencies which are referred to in the affidavit-in-reply of Respondent No. 1 as the reasons to support the impugned order are read as part of the impugned order, it is not possible to sustain the impugned order. This is evident from the following. 3.4 The first deficiency alleged against the College is with regard to the noncompliance of Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and ESI Act, 1942. However, the former Act is applicable provided there are employees having salary less than Rs. 15,000/. The College has no such employee. The later Act is not applicable in Gujarat to the educational institutions. Besides this, the concerned authorities under both the Acts have never found the College in breach. This apart, this deficiency, even if exists, is of rectifiable nature, hence, does not warrant denial of extension of permission partially by way of reduction of intake. 3.5 The second deficiency alleged against the College is with regard to in all four teachers who were found to be ineligible as they were above the age limit of 40 years on the date of their appointments. However, these teachers were not declared ineligible on this ground in the academic years 2018-19 and 2019-20. The age limit of 40 years at the time of initial appointment prescribed vide Schedule VII of MSR 2013 appears to be directory in nature. Else, these appointments would have been objected to while considering the College for extension of permission for the earlier academic years. The age limit of 40 years at the time of initial appointment prescribed vide Schedule VII of MSR 2013 appears to be directory in nature. Else, these appointments would have been objected to while considering the College for extension of permission for the earlier academic years. 3.6 Be that as it may, the College is having additional teachers (lecturers) within the permissible age limit on the date of their respective appointments. Hence, even if said four teachers are excluded, there will not be shortfall. This aspect was brought to the notice of the Designated Hearing Committee of Respondent No.1. 3.7 The third deficiency alleged against the College is with regard to non-consideration of Dr. Mateen Ahmed as teacher (professor) for non-submission of his affidavit. However, it was pointed out to the Designated Hearing Committee of Respondent No. 1 that as Dr. Mateen Ahmed did not join after his appointment, Dr. Krishna Kawadker was appointed and the relevant documents supporting her appointment were submitted along with the written submissions. 3.8 The fourth deficiency alleged against the College is with regard to non-availability of six teachers (also referred to as consultants in MSR 2013) of Modern Medicine. However, the College is having MOU with the multi-specialty hospital for availing the services of teachers (consultants) of Modern Medicine. These teachers (consultants) are the practicing doctors of Modern Medicine. As per regulation 3 (2) of MSR 2013, such MOU is permissible. Accordingly, this was never objected to in earlier academic years. 3.9 The fifth deficiency alleged against the College is with regard to the absentees of higher faculties in the concerned department. However, theses absentees were on account of leave granted to them. Otherwise, the College is having the requisite higher faculty. The details thereof were furnished along with the written submission. 3.10 Without prejudice to the aforesaid, even if the impugned order was warranted, the impugned order would fail to hold the field for not following the procedure mandated by section 19 of the Homeopathy Central Council Act, 1973. 3.11 Further, the grant of extension (renewal) of permission to an existing college stands on a different footing as compared to the grant of new permission to start the college. In case of former, even if some deficiencies are noticed, time needs to be granted to rectify rather than denying extension of permission. 3.11 Further, the grant of extension (renewal) of permission to an existing college stands on a different footing as compared to the grant of new permission to start the college. In case of former, even if some deficiencies are noticed, time needs to be granted to rectify rather than denying extension of permission. Hence, the alleged deficiencies, though not in existence as aforesaid, even if presumed to be there, warranted time to the College to rectify rather than the impugned order. Reliance is placed on the decision in case of Royal Medical Trust V/s Union of India reported in (2015) 10 SCC 19 , particularly Paragraph 29 thereof. 3.12 The impugned order, if viewed in totality, is cryptic, mechanical, without considering the submissions of the College and suffering from the vice of total non-application of mind warranting interception in the present petition. Reliance is placed on the decision in case of Jagat Narain Subharti Charitable Trust & Anr. V/s Union of India & Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 666 , particularly Paragraph 16 thereof & also on the decision in case of Kanachur Islamic Education Trust V/s. Union of India reported in (2017) 15 SCC 702 – particularly Paragraphs 18 to 20. 3.14 The judgments relied upon by Respondent No.1 in its affidavit-in-reply are in respect of the cases where multiple deficiencies of grave and non-rectifiable nature were noticed to which the concerned colleges were having no cogent answer in defence. Hence, the same have no application to the impugned order. Here, it deserves to be mentioned that the said judgments can never be construed as laying down an absolute proposition of law that, regardless of the nature of order, no interference is possible once the permission is denied to the college. Needless to mention that the proposition sought to be propounded by Respondent No.1 in this regard, if accepted, would mean immunizing the impugned order from the purview of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Mr.Siddharth Dave appeared for Mr.Devang Vyas learned Additional Solicitor General for the respondent nos.1 and 2 made the following submissions: 4.1 Mr.Siddharth Dave would submit that the order impugned in the petition is just and proper. He would invite the attention of the Court to the regulations i.e. MSR, 2013. 4. Mr.Siddharth Dave appeared for Mr.Devang Vyas learned Additional Solicitor General for the respondent nos.1 and 2 made the following submissions: 4.1 Mr.Siddharth Dave would submit that the order impugned in the petition is just and proper. He would invite the attention of the Court to the regulations i.e. MSR, 2013. He would submit that Regulation 3(1) requires the college to fulfill the minimum standards in context of teaching facilities referred to in Regulations No.4 to 13. Regulation No.7 prescribes requirement of teaching hospital. Regulation no.9 provides for requirements of college which prescribes that there shall be a minimum teaching faculty as per Schedule-IV for the course. He would submit that the contention of Shri Dhaval Dave that the memorandum of understanding would save the college from the deficit is misconceived as the memorandum of understanding viz. for purposes other than teaching. He would invite the attention of the Court to schedule-IV and V of the Regulations together with Regulation No.12 to submit that for intake upto 60, the minimum teaching staff required for the degree course is 24. Only full time faculty is required at all levels. As per Schedule-VII which requires essential qualifications for the teaching staff, the age has to be not more than 40 years as on the last date of receipt of the application. 4.2 Justifying the impugned order, Mr.Dave would submit that admittedly the teaching faculty had members more than 40 years of age. He would rely on the amended regulations of 2019 to submit that it was incumbent upon an existing college to make an application in Form-I which was mandatory providing details which the college had not provided which was prerequisite for getting affiliation. He would counter the submission of Shri Dhaval Dave in context of Section 19 of the Homeopathy Central Council Act and submit that the impugned order is not in context of withdrawal of recognition, but is in compliance of Section 12C of the Act, by which, permission for certain existing medical college is to be made. He would invite the attention of the Court to the impugned order and submit that the deficiencies listed therein were material enough and ought to have been complied with. It was a mandatory requirement under the Rules. Nothing was produced by the institution on record to show that in the previous years there was compliance. He would invite the attention of the Court to the impugned order and submit that the deficiencies listed therein were material enough and ought to have been complied with. It was a mandatory requirement under the Rules. Nothing was produced by the institution on record to show that in the previous years there was compliance. There was no prejudice inasmuch to the show cause notice listing out shortcomings the petitioner was invited to respond and the authority found them to be insufficient compliance. The order therefore cannot be said to be an unreasoned order. 4.3 With regard to the submissions cited by Shri Dhaval Dave in case of Kanachur (supra), Shri Siddharth Dave relied on the decision in case of Kalinga Mining Corporation v. Union of India and others reported in [ (2013) 5 SCC 252 ] and submitted that the order was not bad as institutional hearing is a recognized principle. He would also rely on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Buddhi Vidhatajan Kalyan Samiti v. Union of India and Anr. reported in LAWS (DLH) 2016 12 182, particularly para 26 thereof. He would submit that the decision of Parul University v. Union of India reported in 2017 SCC OnLine Guj 77, was not applicable. He would reiterate that Kanachur (supra) was considered in Royal Medical Trust and Another v. Union of India and Another reported in [ (2017) 16 SCC 605 ], where it was held that the judgment applies in the facts of the case. He would rely on paras 26 to 33 thereof. Mr.Dave would rely on the decision in the case of J&K Housing Board and another v. Kunwar Sanjay Krishan Kaul and others reported in (2011) 10 SCC 714 to submit that things have to be done in a particular manner. Reliance was also placed on the decision in case of Manoharlal Sharma v. Medical Council of India and others reported in (2013) 10 SCC 60 . Reliance was also placed on the decision in case of Karpagam Faculty of Medical Sciences and Research v. Union of India and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 568 , particularly para 17 to 22 to submit that compliance with the regulations was a prerequisite and therefore the order impugned in the petition would not suffer from any effect of either non application of mind and/or being a non-speaking order. 5. 5. In rejoinder, Shri Dhaval Dave learned Senior Advocate would submit that the college gave the details in the prescribed form. Relying on Regulation 3(2) read with Regulation 9(2) of the Regulations, Shri Dave would submit that the MOU was valid as even Rule 9(2) gave permission to engage consultants as teaching faculty. 6. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties, rather than deciding the petition on the preliminary issue of the order being defective on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice in context of the submissions made relying on the decisions in the case of Kanachur Islamic Education Trust (supra) and its applicability, it is in the fitness of things to consider the issue on merits. 6.1 What is evident from the reading of the impugned order is that the authority found the following deficiencies: “Recommended for allowing admission in I – BHMS Course for the session 2020-21 with the intake capacity of only 60 seats in existing UG (BHMS) course, due to insufficient Part time teachers of Modern Medicine (03 against 09), absence of fulltime faculty/ guest faculty of Prof. Cadre in the Dept. of Pathalogy, FMT, Obs & Gynae. and the discrepancy in appointment of faculties. Further, the Committee also recommended to apprise the Ministry that teachers are getting salary of 1.15 lakhs without EPF/PF deduction, thus not complying with the provisions of Employee’s Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provident Act, 1952 & ESI Act, 1948 and relevant Rules and Regulations. Details of ineligible teachers are as under: 1. Dr. Mahesh Kumar Mohanbhai Bharawala (Lecturer – Anatomy) – not considered eligible as exceeding 40 years (DOB – 12-01-1976) at the time of joining (DOJ – 17-11-2018) as Lecturer, MD done in 2006. 2. Dr. Smita Nabulal Lakhani (Lecturer – FMT) – Not considered eligible as age exceeding 40 years (DOB – 10-05-1969) at the time of joining (DOJ – 01-02-2018) as Lecturer, MD done in 2010. 3. Dr. Chunilal Devjibhai Patel (Lecturer – Practice of Medicine) – Not considered eligible as age exceeding 40 years (DOB – 14-03-1969) at the time of joining (DOJ – 01-01-2019) as Lecturer, MD done in 2012. 4. Dr. Ketankumar Popatlal Gadhvi (Lecturer – Obs. & Gynae.) Not considered eligible as age exceeding 40 years (DOB – 01-12-1974) at the time of joining (DOJ – 01-01-2019) as Lecturer, MD done in 2003. 5. Dr. 4. Dr. Ketankumar Popatlal Gadhvi (Lecturer – Obs. & Gynae.) Not considered eligible as age exceeding 40 years (DOB – 01-12-1974) at the time of joining (DOJ – 01-01-2019) as Lecturer, MD done in 2003. 5. Dr. Mateen Ahmed Hafizulla Khan (Professor – Repertory) – Not considered eligible as affidavit not provided.” 6.2 Apparently, as far as the first deficiency is concerned, it has been rightly pointed out that the college does not come under the compulsory EPF criteria at all as the employees draw salary much above Rs.15,000/. As far as ESI Act is concerned, the Act is not applicable to educational institutions in Gujarat. Even it is not the case of the authorities that the institution has been held liable by the competent authorities under the Act for a breach thereof. 6.3 The second deficiency is that there were three part time teachers against the available requirement of nine. What has been pointed out by the institution is that as per the MOU with a multispeciality hospital the teaching can be carried out by consultants of the hospital. Moreover, they have on call faculties in the subject of anesthesia, radiology etc. Reading Regulation 3(2) with Regulation 9(2) of the Regulations, it is evident that there can be a faculty comprising of consultants who may be appointed on contract basis on part time or on call basis. There is therefore sufficient compliance. Even as far as the deficiency of the six teaching staff being above the age of 40, it is rightly submitted by Shri Dhaval Dave that there has never been an objection in the academic years 2018-19 and 2019-20. Even reading the submissions made at the Hearing Committee would indicate that apart from these objections on the age of the four faculties, in addition thereto, there was already one Assistant Professor each in the relevant department, details of which were uploaded on the CCH portal. The omissions as far as not possessing three stretchers and the data of ECG not found, are not serious enough to warrant restriction on the intake capacity. 6.4 Even when the institution came earlier by filing SCA No.14151 of 2018, this Court by an order of 04.10.2018, in context of a prayer for permitting the institution to grant intake of 100 seats, allowed the petition. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is allowed. Prayer in terms of paras 32(a) is granted. 6.4 Even when the institution came earlier by filing SCA No.14151 of 2018, this Court by an order of 04.10.2018, in context of a prayer for permitting the institution to grant intake of 100 seats, allowed the petition. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is allowed. Prayer in terms of paras 32(a) is granted. Direct service is permitted.