ORDER : This Review Petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC has been filed for review of order dated 09.07.2022 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.15137/2022 on the ground that the writ petition has been dismissed erroneously by considering the facts of other connected writ petitions. 2. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant had filed SLP (Civil) No. 13019/2022 which has been withdrawn by order dated 01.08.2022 with liberty to file review application. It is submitted that the petition was dismissed under an impression that license granted to the hospital of the petitioner was cancelled and it was not in existence on the day when the application for recognition was filed, whereas the license of the hospital was never cancelled and it was alive on the day when the application for recognition was filed. 3. It is further submitted that it is true that the petitioner had claimed that it was having the hospital of 150 beds and had intake capacity of 50 students, but the respondents were ignoring the deficiency of 10 beds and, therefore, rejection of the petition on the ground that the petitioner was not having sufficient number of beds for imparting teaching to 50 students is not correct. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. It is not out of place to mention here that number of writ petitions filed by different Nursing Colleges through the same Council were listed and arguments were advanced only in one case and submission was made that all other writ petitions are identically placed. 6. The writ petition was filed against communication Annexure P-1 which reads as under:- l= 2021&22 dh ekU;rk gsrq vkidh laLFkk czkbV Ldwy vkQ uflZx ¼17145½ Xokfy;j }kjk fujLr fd;k x;k FkkA vkWuykbu vkosnu es vkids }kjk futh vLirky ds vk/kkj ij th-,u-,e- ikB;Øe dh ekU;rk pkgh x;h FkhA lca) futh vLirky dk iath;u@ykblsal lh,e,pvks Xokfy;j }kjk fujLr fd;k x;k gSA mijksDr ds dkj.k e/; izns'k uaflZx f'k{k.k laLFkk ekU;rk fu;e 2018 ,oa la'kksf/kr ekU;rk fu;eksa ds varxZr fu/kkZfjr ekin.Mks dh iwfrZ u gksus ls vkidh laLFkk dks l= 2021&22 es pkgs x;s th-,u-,e ikB;Øe dh ekU;rk iznku ugh dh tk ldrh gSA 7. The application filed by the petitioner for recognition of Nursing College was rejected on the ground that the license of the concerning private hospital has already been cancelled by CMHO, Gwalior. The application filed by the petitioner for recognition of Nursing College was rejected on the ground that the license of the concerning private hospital has already been cancelled by CMHO, Gwalior. This Court has gone through the entire writ petition. The applicant had not challenged the reason on which recognition was cancelled. Even the writ petition is silent on the issue as to whether the license of the hospital run by the petitioner was ever cancelled either before making of an application for recognition or thereafter or not. Even there is not a single whisper in the writ petition to the effect that the reason assigned by the respondents for cancellation of recognition was incorrect. Furthermore, it is once again clarified that even during the course of arguments, a statement was made by the counsel for the applicant that all the writ petitions listed on the said date involve identical questions of facts and did not dispute that the reason assigned for cancellation of recognition is erroneous. 8. Be that whatever it may. 9. From the documents filed by the petitioner, it is clear that the hospital was granted license up to 31.03.2022 and thereafter there was no license in favour of the hospital for the month of April, 2022 and it was ultimately renewed on 30.04.2022. The petition is completely silent as to why the petitioner did not get the license of the hospital renewed within time. Even in the representation dated 24.06.2022 made by the petitioner, it was merely mentioned that the application for recognition has been rejected on the ground that the license of the hospital has been cancelled, but now it has been got renewed on 30.04.2022. Thus, the petition was filed on vague pleadings. 10. Be that whatever it may. 11. It is the case of the petitioner that the license of the hospital was never cancelled. 12. Now the next question for consideration is as to whether the petitioner was otherwise having minimum qualification for grant of recognition or not ? Paragraph 16 and 17 of the impugned order read as under:- 16. Even otherwise, so far as the contention of the petitioner, that registration of its hospital was renewed at a later stage is concerned, the same would not come to rescue to the petitioner. Paragraph 16 and 17 of the impugned order read as under:- 16. Even otherwise, so far as the contention of the petitioner, that registration of its hospital was renewed at a later stage is concerned, the same would not come to rescue to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, it has 50 seats As per Schedule 3 to Rule 4 of Niyam, 2018, 100 beds are required for 30 students/seats and for every additional student, 3 beds are required. Since, the petitioner is having 50 seats, therefore, the petitioner should have atleast 160 beds, whereas according to the petitioner itself, it is having 150 bed hospital. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner is otherwise not having minimum amenities as per Rule 4 of Niyam, 2022. 17. Although the petitioner has claimed that the application for recognition should have been rejected by the Council and not by the approval of President, but the petitioner has not placed anything on record to show that application for renewal was rejected by the orders of the President. Further it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner is not having any facility of bed, which is a mandatory requirement as per Schedule 3 to Rule 4 of Niyam, 2018.” 13. In reply, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that since the Nursing Council had ignored the deficiency of 10 beds and, therefore, the petitioner was validly granted 50 seats. This submission is misconceived. 14. Counsel for the petitioner could not point out any provision of law which empowers the Nursing Council to relax condition / requirement as provided under the M.P. Nursing Shikshan Sanstha Manyata Niyam, 2018 (in short “Rules, 2018”). The controversy involved in the present case has an exchequered history. W.P. No.9872/2021 was filed complaining that several Nursing Colleges are being run in District Morena, Shivpuri, Datia, Gwalior, Bhind and Sheopur and they do not have essential infrastructure. Accordingly, an inspection committee was constituted by the High Court by order dated 18.08.2021. The controversy involved in the present case has an exchequered history. W.P. No.9872/2021 was filed complaining that several Nursing Colleges are being run in District Morena, Shivpuri, Datia, Gwalior, Bhind and Sheopur and they do not have essential infrastructure. Accordingly, an inspection committee was constituted by the High Court by order dated 18.08.2021. The said order was modified by the Supreme Court by order dated 10.12.2021 passed in Civil Appeal No.7602/2021 with a direction to the High Court to consider the matter afresh and appoint such commission which will be in conformity with the Rules, 2018 and, accordingly, a committee of 10 members was constituted by the Council for inspection of 72 colleges and it was found that recognition has been granted to various colleges dehors the Rules. Thus, there was a specific allegation against the Nursing Council regarding grant of recognition by bypassing the mandatory provision of the Rules. The submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that the recognition for intake capacity of 50 students was granted by the Nursing Council by ignoring the mandatory provisions of Rule 4 of Rules, 2018, clearly indicates that the Nursing Council had deliberately ignored the mandatory provisions and had granted the recognition in a most arbitrary and malicious manner. As per the schedule 3 of Rules, 2018, the minimum number of beds required for 30 students are 100 and for every additional student, 3 beds are required. The petitioner was granted recognition with the intake capacity of 50 students. Thus, it is clear that 100 beds were necessary for first 30 students and thereafter 60 beds were necessary for next 20 students. In all, the petitioner should have a hospital with bed capacity of 160 students, but by conveniently ignoring the said fact, the Nursing Council had granted recognition to the petitioner in spite of the fact that the petitioner had claimed that it has the hospital having bed capacity of 150 beds only. The admission made by the counsel for the applicant that the Nursing Council while granting recognition had ignored that the petitioner was not having minimum number of beds in the hospital, clearly indicates that the entire exercise done by the Nursing Council was bad in law. 15. The admission made by the counsel for the applicant that the Nursing Council while granting recognition had ignored that the petitioner was not having minimum number of beds in the hospital, clearly indicates that the entire exercise done by the Nursing Council was bad in law. 15. Thus, it is held that when the applicant himself has failed to prove that it had sufficient infrastructure for the intake capacity of 50 students, the recognition could not have been granted to the petitioner. Even if the ground raised by the applicant in the review petition that the license of the hospital of the petitioner was never cancelled is considered, still it would not pass the test of eligibility as it was not having a hospital with the capacity of 160 beds. 16. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that when the mistake pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner has not effected the ultimate outcome of the petition, coupled with the fact that the counsel for the petitioner himself had claimed that all the connected writ petitions are identical and even in the writ petition, the petitioner had not claimed that the ground for rejection of the application for recognition was incorrect, no case is made out for review. 17. Accordingly, the Review Petition fails and is hereby dismissed.