ORDER : 1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition because the Central Government has reduced the seats of the petitioner’s college to the extent of 50% from 100 to 50 by way of order dated 05.07.2024. 2. Mr. Vikas Balia, learned senior counsel submitted that the impugned order is liable to be quashed as it has been passed without providing any opportunity of hearing, which is a sine-qua-non as per Regulation No. 11A 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 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulations of 2006’). 3. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the notice, which was given by the Central Government on 06.04.2023 was firstly, for academic Session 2023-24 in furtherance whereof, the petitioner had filed its satisfactory reply. He submitted that an inspection was again conducted by the Dental Council of India on 20.12.2023 during which no discrepancy was found at petitioner’s college. 4. Learned Senior Counsel informed that the Dental Council of India conducted an inspection again on 5/6.04.2024 and recommended to the Central Government that the number of seats of the petitioner’s college be reduced pointing out certain deficiencies/discrepancies. It was asserted that neither any copy of the inspection report was provided to the petitioner nor was any fresh notice regarding reduction of seats was ever issued by the respondents. 5. He argued that the reduction of seats amounts to withdrawal of recognition to the extent of 50 seats, for which, as per provision of section 16A(2) of the Dentist Act, 1948 the recommendation of the State is necessary. He thus argued that in absence of consent/ recommendation of the State, recognition cannot be withdrawn. 6. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that if the Central Government deems it appropriate and expedient, in exercise of powers available to it under Regulation No. 11A of the Regulations of 2006, it can only restrict the number of admission and not reduce the seat capacity. 7. Learned Senior Counsel argued that the notice dated 06.04.2023, whereby petitioner’s college was provided personal hearing, contained no whisper as to whether the Central Government proposed to reduce the number of seats. 7. Learned Senior Counsel argued that the notice dated 06.04.2023, whereby petitioner’s college was provided personal hearing, contained no whisper as to whether the Central Government proposed to reduce the number of seats. He emphasised that the notice dated 06.04.2023 cannot be considered to be a notice issued in terms of Regulation No. 11A of the Regulations of 2006. 8. Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, learned Dy. Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India submitted that the petitioner’s contention that no notice was issued to the petitioner before reduction of the seat matrix is incorrect and untenable. He added that the order impugned dated 05.07.2024 is culmination of proceedings which were initiated by the Central Government by way of notice dated 06.04.2023. 9. In a bid to explain the reason for not issuing notice, he submitted that though the Central Government in furtherance of the recommendation of Dental Council of India had sought opinion/consent of the State Government, but by the time their concurrence was received, the Session of 2023-24 was almost over and therefore, no action as proposed by the Dental Council of India was taken. And, it was only when admissions for new academic Session 2024-25 were about to begin, the Central Government decided to reduce the seat matrix of the petitioner and directed the petitioner not to give admission on more than 50 seats. 10. Mr. Rajpurohit further submitted that during the pendency of the proceedings, the Central Government had asked the Dental Council of India as to whether it would continue with the earlier recommendation or they want to hold inspection and send their recommendation. In furtherance thereof, the Dental Council of India had conducted fresh inspection on 05/06.04.2024 and found various discrepancies, on the basis whereof the petitioner’s entitlement to admit 100 students has been reduced to 50 students. 11. Learned Dy. Solicitor General relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Baba Jaswant Singh Dental College, Hospital and Research Institute vs. Union of India & Ors. 11. Learned Dy. Solicitor General relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Baba Jaswant Singh Dental College, Hospital and Research Institute vs. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:107706-DB) and submitted that the number of seats of said petitioner college (Baba Jaswant Singh Dental College) were reduced on the same date and for the similar reasons and dealing with the case of the petitioner therein, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that no fresh notice is required and that the order impugned is culmination of earlier proceedings. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 13. The discrepancies pointed out by the Dental Council of India are matters of facts. This Court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not like to examine the same – these are for the expert bodies to consider. 14. This Court, however, finds substance in the arguments of Mr. Balia, learned Senior Counsel that the order impugned has been passed in utter disregard to the provisions of Regulation No. 11A of the Regulations of 2006, inasmuch as, no notice was issued to the petitioner. 15. With a view to substantiate that requirement of Regulation No. 11A of the Regulations of 2006 has been followed, the notice dated 06.04.2023 issued by the Central Government was relied upon by the respondents. A look at the notice dated 06.04.2023 (Annexure-11) shows that the Central Government had simply elicited comments of the petitioner and asked the petitioner to send the compliance report. The notice did not have any whisper about any action to be taken against the petitioner, much less reduction in the capacity. 16. In the opinion of this Court, such a communication cannot be construed to be a notice, as envisaged under the Regulation No. 11A of the Regulations of 2006. If the Central Government wished to reduce the number of seats of the petitioner’s college in terms of the Regulation No. 11A of the Regulations of 2006 or thought that petitioner’s college should not give admission on more than 50 seats, it was incumbent upon it to have issued a specific notice in this regard, so that the petitioner could respond and put forth plausible reasons before the Central Government. 17. 17. There is no gainsaying the fact that after the notice dated 06.04.2023 was issued, the petitioner had filed its reply. A look at the reply shows that the petitioner has tried to satisfy the respondent-UOI about the discrepancies that were pointed out. But, since a fresh inspection had subsequently been conducted by the Dental Council of India on 22.12.2023, (in which as claimed by the petitioner, no discrepancy was pointed out), the petitioner’s case was required to be considered by the Central Government in light of the prevailing position. 18. In case the Central Government wanted to rely upon the report dated 05/06.04.2024, which has been sent by the Dental Council of India, a copy thereof or at least substance of the discrepancies was required to be supplied to the petitioner. In absence of specific notice indicating the consequence or action to be taken and without a copy of the report, the requirement of natural justice so also the mandate of Regulation No. 11A of the Regulations of 2006 have not been met. 19. It was only when the petitioner received the impugned order dated 05.07.2024, whereby petitioner’s seats have been reduced, copy of the recommendation dated 25.04.2024 was sent to the petitioner. Said recommendation letter dated 25.04.2024 outlines certain discrepancies. The discrepancies may be existing or non-existing or may be, not persisting. Had an opportunity been given, the petitioner could have responded. 20. The manner in which the order impugned has been passed is nothing short of putting the cart before the horse - the discrepancies have been communicated to the petitioner after the decision of the reduction of the seats having been taken. As a matter of fair procedure, it ought to have been done vice-versa. 21. It was least expected of the Central Government to have informed the petitioner about the discrepancies reported by the Dental Council of India along with a notice in compliance of Regulation No. 11A of the Regulations of 2006. It was only after taking reply from the petitioner, the Central Government could pass an order under said Regulation. 22. For whatever has been noted above, the present writ petition is allowed; the order impugned dated 05.07.2024 is, hereby, quashed. 23. The petitioner is directed to file a reply/representation dealing with the discrepancies, which have been pointed out in the report dated 25.04.2024 on or before 20.09.2024. 24. 22. For whatever has been noted above, the present writ petition is allowed; the order impugned dated 05.07.2024 is, hereby, quashed. 23. The petitioner is directed to file a reply/representation dealing with the discrepancies, which have been pointed out in the report dated 25.04.2024 on or before 20.09.2024. 24. The Central Government shall consider the reply in accordance with law and pass a fresh order on or before 30.09.2024. 25. If the final order to be passed by the Central Government is in petitioner’s favour and the seats of the petitioner college are not reduced, the petitioner shall be allowed to take part in the subsequent counselling for admission in BDS & MDS Course on the remaining seats (over 50). 26. The petitioner’s right to give admission on 50 seats as per the order of the Central Government shall nevertheless remain intact. 27. It will be required of the Dental Council of India to send soft/ hard copy of the report to the petitioner so as to enable it to file proper response/reply. 28. Stay application also stands disposed of, accordingly.