JUDGMENT S. Sujatha, J. - This intra-Court appeal is directed against the order dated 30.8.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 4013/2021, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant herein has been dismissed. 2. The appellant/petitioner institution was granted with the recognition for the 1st year Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Science (BAMS) with an intake of 60 students by the respondent No. 1 vide order dated 16.08.2017. The affiliation was accorded for the academic year 2017-18 by the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences - respondent No. 3 on 06.10.2017. For the succeeding academic years i.e., 2018-19 and 2019-20, the recognition orders were passed, the affiliation has also been granted till the academic year 2019-20. The appellant as per the communication dated 06.03.2020 made to the respondent No. 2 - Central Council of Indian Medicine (CCIM) sought for permission to close down the institution. Subsequently, a representation dated 12.09.2020 was made to the CCIM to permit the appellant to submit the Part - I visitation proforma and enable the appellant to seek permission for the continuation of the course for the academic year 2020-21 which was placed before the Board of Governors of CCIM. The said Board decided to consider the grant of permission for the academic year 2021-22. Government of India based on the recommendation of CCIM has passed the order dated 05.02.2021 denying the permission for taking admission to UG (BAMS) course with 60 seats for the academic session 2020-21 and decided that the requirements if fulfilled by the appellant college by 31.12.2020 and the same will be examined by the CCIM for considering the permission for academic year 2021-22. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred W.P. No. 4013/2021, which came to be dismissed. Hence, this writ appeal. 3. Learned Senior counsel Sri. D.R. Ravishankar representing the appellant submitted that the grant of permission is regulated under Section 13A of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 ('Act' for short) and the Minimum Standard Requirement Regulations are framed from time to time. Section 13A of the Act contemplates about the scheme for commencement of the medical college and upon the recommendation of the CCIM, orders shall be passed. Section 13A of the Act contemplates about the scheme for commencement of the medical college and upon the recommendation of the CCIM, orders shall be passed. Relying upon the requirement of Minimum Standard Regulations, 2016 ('Regulations' for short), learned Senior counsel argued that the procedure as contemplated under the Regulations having not been followed for refusing to grant permission is an incurable legal infirmity. The requirements to be fulfilled in terms of Regulation 3 of the Regulations having been prescribed while granting permission for the academic session 2019-2020, the refusal to grant permission for admission for the academic session 2020-2021 could not be justified unless an inspection was conducted in terms of Regulation 3. Emphasizing on Regulation 3(1)(b), learned Senior counsel submitted that it was obligatory on the part of the Central Council to visit the college suo-moto three months before the expiry of permission. 4. It was further submitted that the requirement as per Regulation 3(1)(c) is to upload the proforma of visit as prescribed by the Central Council on its website by the colleges and visitors respectively followed by the submission of a hard copy of the same as per visitors guidelines issued by the Central Council from time to time. The reason assigned for denial inasmuch as non submission of Part - I visitation proforma was wholly erroneous since no such requirement was prescribed in the Regulation, filing of Part - I proforma is not a mandatory requirement. Thus, the learned Senior counsel placing reliance on the wednesbury's principles submitted that when the law requires things to be done in particular manner, it should be done in that manner or not at all. Learned Senior counsel has placed reliance on the following judgments:- 1) Indian Bank's Association vs. Devkala Consultancy Service [2004 (12) SCC 11] 2) W.A. No. 736/2011 [Central Council of Indian Medicine vs. Union of India and others, D.D. 31.10.2011]; 3) W.A. No. 47612/2018 [M/s. Muniyal Institute of Ayurveda, Medical Sciences and another vs. Union of India and others, D.D. 29.06.2021]. 5. Learned counsel Smt. Manasi Kumari appearing for respondent No. 2 supporting the impugned order submitted that the provisions of the Act and Regulations provide the requirements to be followed by the institution, which are mandatory in nature. In the absence of compliance with any requirement, the appellant-institution is not entitled to admit students. 5. Learned counsel Smt. Manasi Kumari appearing for respondent No. 2 supporting the impugned order submitted that the provisions of the Act and Regulations provide the requirements to be followed by the institution, which are mandatory in nature. In the absence of compliance with any requirement, the appellant-institution is not entitled to admit students. The grant of permission to admit students are of two kinds; (1) grant of permission for a period of five years as per Regulation 3(2); (2) grant of conditional permission for a period of one year as per Regulation 3(3). The appellant falls under the second category of conditional permission. As per Regulation 3(1)(b), the Central Council was required to visit the college suo-moto three months before the expiry of permission, according to which, the compliance would have been done but for the repeated representation/request made by the appellant from 06.03.2020 till 05.08.2020 seeking for closure of the Institution. Referring to Annexure - H1, it was submitted that the information submitted by the college was editable, the final date fixed for submitting the Part - I proforma was 21.04.2020. No such Part-I proforma was submitted by the appellant. Inviting the attention of the Court to Annexure - R, it was submitted that declaration is shown as "not submitted". The interim order sought by the appellant in the writ petition for admitting students for the academic year 2020-21 was rejected by the writ Court. The relief claimed by the petitioner is not maintainable since no legal right has accrued to the appellant. Lapse on the part of the appellant in not complying with the Regulation is fatal to the case. If the appellant has admitted the students despite rejection of the interim order, it is nothing but brazen disregard to the orders of the Court. The institution is playing with the career of the students. Now at this juncture, I.A. No. 2/2022 filed by the students seeking permission for impleading, is an ingenious method/device adopted by the appellant which cannot be permitted. Whether the students are impleaded as petitioners or not would not be relevant for adjudication of the dispute involved in the case. On these grounds, learned counsel sought for dismissal of the appeal as well as I.A. No. 2/2022. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 submitted that the appellant having sought for closure of the institution, subsequently has changed its stand. On these grounds, learned counsel sought for dismissal of the appeal as well as I.A. No. 2/2022. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 submitted that the appellant having sought for closure of the institution, subsequently has changed its stand. In the absence of initiation for renewal as per the procedure prescribed under the Regulations, question of considering the request for admission of students is wholly untenable. No students were arrayed as parties before the learned Single Judge, but for the first time I.A. No. 2/2022 has been filed by them to come on record in this appeal proceedings, which is impermissible. Thus, supporting the order of the learned Single Judge, learned counsel prays for dismissal of the writ appeal and I.A. No. 2/2022. 7. We have carefully considered the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 8. Regulation No. 3[1][a] to [e] reads thus: "3. Requirements of Minimum Standard to grant of permission- (1)(a) The Ayurveda colleges established under section 13A and existing under section 13C of the Act and their attached hospitals shall fulfill the requirements of minimum standard for infrastructure and teaching and training facilities referred to in the regulations 4 to 11 upto the 31st December of every year for consideration of grant of permissions for undertaking admissions in the coming academic session; (b) the Central Council shall visit the college suo moto three months before the expiry of permission; (c) the proforma of visit as prescribed by the Central Council on its website shall be filled online by the colleges and visitors respectively followed by submission of a hard copy of the same as per visitors guidelines issued by Central Council from time to time; (d) the videography and photography of staff and infrastructure during the visit shall be made by the visitors and submitted along with detailed report and observations to the Central Council; (e) after submission of online detailed report and observations by the visitors to the Central Council, the Central Council shall submit its recommendation along with detailed report to the Central Government within a period of one month from the submission of report by the visitors;" 9. It cannot be gainsaid that the appellant has expressed its intention to close down the institution due to various reasons as per the communication dated 06.03.2020, 15.05.2020 and 05.08.2020. It cannot be gainsaid that the appellant has expressed its intention to close down the institution due to various reasons as per the communication dated 06.03.2020, 15.05.2020 and 05.08.2020. This request for closure of the institution made was withdrawn by the appellant submitting a representation dated 12.09.2020 to the CCIM to permit the appellant for submitting the Part - I Visitation Proforma and to continue the course for the academic year 2020-21. In such circumstances, the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that the Central Council ought to have visited the college suo-moto three months before the expiry of permission is wholly untenable. Within the said three months period before the expiry of permission, if the request of the appellant for closure of the institution is pending, expecting the Central Council to visit the appellant's college suo-moto during that period is unjustifiable. 10. There is no cavil on the dictum pronounced by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M.P. Wakf Board V/s. Subhan Shah [Dead] By LRs. And Others [ (2006) 10 SCC 696 ] that where a statute creates different authorities to exercise their respective functions thereunder, each of such authority must exercise the functions within the four corners of the statute. It is settled principle that when a procedure has been laid down, the authority must act strictly in terms thereof. But, whether such action of the Central Council could be expected in the background of the case on hand when the appellant-institution itself has sought permission for closure of the institution during the crucial period. It was mandatory for the appellant to file the Part - I Visitation Proforma and OTMS on or before 21.04.2020. Admittedly, no such compliance was made. The time fixed for submission of Part - I Visitation Proforma having expired as on 12.09.2020 when the withdrawal of closure was made by the appellant, Central Council decided to consider the permission for renewal for the next academic session 2021-22. Having considered these aspects, in the backdrop of the shortcomings communicated to the appellant and the submissions made in response, the Government of India has passed the order dated 05.02.2021 impugned in the Writ Petition. Having considered these aspects, in the backdrop of the shortcomings communicated to the appellant and the submissions made in response, the Government of India has passed the order dated 05.02.2021 impugned in the Writ Petition. There is considerable force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the appellant in utter violation of the order of rejecting permission to admit the students, has admitted the students which may result in contempt. The learned Single Judge having analyzed all these aspects has rightly rejected the grounds urged by the appellant inasmuch as the challenge made to the impugned order. 11. It is ex-facie apparent that the appellant in brazen violation of the orders of the Writ Court in rejecting the request for admitting the students for the academic session 2020-21, has admitted the students who have filed I.A. No. 1/2022 before this Court in the present Writ Appeal proceedings. The Hon'ble Apex Court in number of judgments has repeatedly observed that the institutions cannot play with the future career/life of the students in admitting them for the courses without the approval of the authorities required under the Regulations. If any breach is committed by the appellant-institution by its own conduct, it is the responsibility of the institution to compensate such students, but the Courts cannot come to the rescue of such students who knowingly well about the non-renewal of permission for the academic year 2020-2021, got admitted to the institution. Moreover, they were not arrayed as parties to the proceedings before the Writ Court. No request of the students could be considered in the Writ Appeal proceedings for getting impleaded as parties to the proceedings. It is nothing but an afterthought and cannot be appreciated. 12. For the default committed by the appellant-institution, no blame can be put either on the CCIM or the Government of India in passing the impugned order. No equity can be claimed by the appellant-institution for want of compliance of the Regulations with a specific decision to close the institution. Subsequent change in the decision would not cure the shortcomings or the defects. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, CCIM has observed that the renewal request could be considered for the subsequent academic year 2021-2022 and the same has been reiterated by the Government of India. Subsequent change in the decision would not cure the shortcomings or the defects. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, CCIM has observed that the renewal request could be considered for the subsequent academic year 2021-2022 and the same has been reiterated by the Government of India. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere with the well reasoned order of the learned Single Judge. In the result, I.A. No. 2/2022 as well as Writ Appeal stand dismissed.