JUDGMENT alok aradhe, J. - Mr. D.R. Ravishankar, learned Senior counsel along with Mr.Sarvana S., learned counsel for the petitioner. Miss. Nayana Tara B.G., learned counsel for respondent No.1. Mr.N.K.Khetty, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Mr.N.K.Ramesh, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 6. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus seeking a direction to National Medical Commission as well as Medical assessment and Rating Board to approve and grant Letter of Permission for enhancing intake of 50 more additional seats for MBBS course for academic year 2021-22 in the petitioner - medical college. 2. Facts giving rise to filing of this writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner was accorded recognition by erstwhile Medical Council of India and affiliation by Rajeev Gandhi University of Health Sciences for conducting MBBS course initially with an intake capacity of 150 seats on 08.09.2016. The Rajeev Gandhi University of Health Sciences after considering the application submitted by the petitioner recommended grant of affiliation and for increase in intake of students from 150 to 250 seats for the MBBS course for the academic year 2020-21. The Principal Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare by a communication dated 21.08.2020 issued Essentiality Certificate and Feasibility Certificate for increase in intake of MBBS course from 150 to 250 seats. The Central Government forwarded the proposal for increased intake capacity for the academic session 2021-22 on 09.12.2020 to National Medical Council. 3. The National Medical Commission, however, by a communication dated 16.11.2021 issued a Letter Of Intent for approving increase of only 50 seats from 150 to 200. In the aforesaid factual background, this petition has been filed. 4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Section 28(3) of the National Medical Commission act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act' for short), the Medical assessment and Rating Board has the power either to approve or disapprove a scheme within a period of six months from the date of receipt of such a scheme. However, it is fairly submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that being aggrieved by the communication dated 26.11.2021, the petitioner preferred appeals on 09.12.2021 before the National Medical Commission as well as the Central Government. However, it is fairly submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that being aggrieved by the communication dated 26.11.2021, the petitioner preferred appeals on 09.12.2021 before the National Medical Commission as well as the Central Government. However, the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the National Medical Commission has failed to evoke any response and therefore, the writ petition be disposed of with a direction to the Central Government to decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner which is pending before the Central Government expeditiously. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that no appeal is pending before the Central Government and the petitioner be directed to file an appeal before the Central Government in terms of Section 28(6) of the act and the Central Government shall decide the appeal expeditiously. Learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 has supported the stand taken by learned counsel for respondent No.1. 6. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. Section 28(5) & (6) of the act, read as under: (5) Where a scheme is disapproved under sub-Section (3), or where no decision is taken within six months of submitting a scheme under sub-Section (1), the person concerned may prefer an appeal to the Commission for approval of the scheme within fifteen days of such disapproval or, as the case may be, lapse of six months, in such manner as may be specified by the regulations. (6) The Commission shall decide the appeal received under sub-Section (5) within a period of forty-five days from the date of receipt of the appeal and in case the Commission approves the scheme, such approval shall be the permission under sub-Section (1) to establish a new medical college and in case the Commission disapproves the scheme, or fails to give its decision within the specified period, the person concerned may prefer a second appeal to the Central Government within thirty days of communication of such disapproval or, as the case may be, lapse of specified period. 7. Thus, from conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is evident that if the Commission fails to render its decision within specified time i.e., 45 days from the date of receipt of the appeal, a right accrues to a person to prefer a second appeal to the Central Government on the lapse of specified period of 45 days. 8. 7. Thus, from conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is evident that if the Commission fails to render its decision within specified time i.e., 45 days from the date of receipt of the appeal, a right accrues to a person to prefer a second appeal to the Central Government on the lapse of specified period of 45 days. 8. In the instant case, the petitioner has filed an appeal on 09.12.2021 and the specified period of 45 days for deciding the appeal has expired on 25.01.2022. The National Medical Council has failed to pass any order. Therefore, a right has accrued to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Central Government. We, therefore, permit the petitioner to file an appeal before the Central Government. Taking into account the fact that counseling has already begun and in the peculiar facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to direct the Central Government to decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner by a speaking order within a period of one week from the date of filing of such an appeal. accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.