Holding

The Essentiality Certificate was conditional and not a requisite certificate, so the High Court's direction to consider the application and conduct inspection was beyond the statutory schedule, and the appeal is allowed.

Summary

The V.N. Public Health & Educational Trust applied to establish a medical college for the 2016-17 academic year, submitting an Essentiality Certificate that was later found to be conditional and not in the format prescribed by the 1999 MCI Regulations. The Medical Council of India (MCI) recommended disapproval, and the Central Government rejected the scheme, prompting the Trust to approach the Kerala High Court, which directed the Central Government to consider the application and conduct an inspection despite the defective certificate. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the Essentiality Certificate could be treated as a requisite document and whether the High Court could override the statutory time‑schedule for processing applications. Relying on the Royal Medical Trust and Educare Charitable Trust decisions, the Court held that a conditional certificate is not a valid Essentiality Certificate and that the High Court’s direction contravened the MCI’s prescribed schedule. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court orders, allowed the appeal, and directed that the Trust may file a fresh application for a subsequent academic year in compliance with the Regulations.

Issues considered

Whether the Essentiality Certificate submitted by the Trust was a requisite certificate or a conditional one rendering the application defective.
Whether the Kerala High Court could direct consideration of the application and inspection despite the defective certificate.
Whether the Medical Council of India could deviate from the time‑schedule prescribed in the 1999 Regulations and the approved notification.
Whether the Trust is entitled to submit a fresh application for a later academic year.

Legislation cited

Medical Council of India Act, 1956s. 10-A, s. 33

Subjects

Medical Council of IndiaEssentiality CertificateMedical college establishmentRegulations 1999Time scheduleInspectionAdministrative lawStatutory interpretation

Judgment

[2016] 2 S.C.R. 364

A MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA
v.
V.N. PUBLIC HEALTH & EDUCATIONAL TRUST & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.3964 of20 I 6)
B APRIL 18, 2016
[DIPAK MISRA AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.)
Education/Educational Institutions:
Medical College - Establishment of - Commencing from
C academic year 2016-2017 -Application for establishment of medical
college - Medical Council of India (MCI) recommended to the
Govem111ent to disapprove the application on the ground that the
'Essentiality Certificate' was not in accordance with the format
prescribed by 1999 Regulations - Disapproval of the scheme of
establish111ent by the Govern111ent - Writ petition - Dismissed by
D courts below directing the appropriate authority to consider the
application after taking into consideration fresh revised Essentiality
Certificate - On appeal, held: The Essentia/ity Certificate, submitted
initially with the application, for establishment of Medical College
was a conditional one - The sa111e cannot be regarded as requisite
E . certificate - In such a situation High Court could not have directed
for consideration of the application for the purpose of inspection -
High Court also could not have gone beyond the time schedule
prescribed by MCI - Medical Council Act, 1956 - s. 10-A -
Establishment of the Medical College Regulations, 1999.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
F
HELD: 1.1 On a perusal of the Essentiality Certificate dated
31.08.2015, it is obvious that it is a conditional certificate.
The said fact has been reiterated by the appellant-MCI vide its
communication dated 19.10.2015. A conditional certificate cannot
be regarded as the reqnisite Certificate inasmuch as the
G conditions which are essential to the certificate are reqnired
to be fnlfilled. On the basis of such a certificate, the MCI was
not expected to approve the application submitted by an
educational institution. It had clearly communicated that the
prescribed format stipulates that adequate clinical material as
per the MCI norms "is available". Thus, the availability has to
H
364
l\fEDICAL CbUNCIL OF INDIA v. V. N. PUBLICHEALTH & 365
EDUCATIONAL TRUST

be in praesenti but not to be a condition to be satisfied at a later A
stage. That is not the postulate in the Establishment of Medical
College Regulations. [Para 10] (370-H; 371-A-B]
1.2 The application for grant of approval was filed with the
Essentiality Certificate which was a conditional one and,
therefore, a defective one. It was not an Essentiality Certificate B
a
in law. In such situation, the High Court could not have
directed for consideration of the application for the purpose
of the inspection. Such a direction, runs counter to the law laid
down in *Educltre Cliaritllble Trust and ** Roylll MediClll Trust
cases. [Para 15] [375-A-B]
c
2. On the date of the application, the Essentiality
Certificate was not in order. The Schedule prescribed by the
MCI, whicl,i had been approved by this Court, is binding on all
concerned. MCI cannot transgress it. The High Court could
not have. gone beyond the same and issued any direction for
conducting an inspection for the academic year 2016-17. D
Therefore, the directions issued by the single Judge and the
affirmation thereof by th_e Division Bench are wholly
unsustainable. [Para 151 [375-CJ.
3. It will be open to the Trust to submit a fresh application
for the next academic year in consonance with the provisions of E
the Ri!gulations of the MCI and as per the time Schedule; and in
that event; it wiU be considered appropriately. [Para 16] (375-D-
E]
Royal Medical Trust (Registered) and Anr. v. Union of
India & Anr. 2015 (10) SCC 19; D.Y. Patil Medical F
College v. Medical Council of India & Anr. 2015 (10)
SCC 51: 2015 (9) SCR 686; Educare Charitable Trust
v. Union of India & Anr. 2013 (16) SCC 474: 2013
(10) SCR 167 - relied on.
Case Law Reference G
2015 (10) SCC 19 relied on. Para 2
2015 (9) SCR 686 relied on. Para 14
2013 (10) SCR 167 . relied on. Para 14
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3964
of2016 · H
366 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) 2 S.C.R.

A FromtheJudgmentandOrderdated 19.0l.2016ofthe High Court
ofKerala at Ernakulum, in Writ Appeal No. 96 of2016
Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv., Gaurav Sharma, Prateek Bhatia, Dhaval
Mohan Advs., with him for the Appellant.
Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG, Huzefa Ahmadi, Sr. Adv., D. S. Mahra,
B Ajay Sharma, R. K. Rathor, S. S. Rawat, Prabal Bagchi, Akash Jindal
B. Krishna Prasad, M. T. George,.Abdhesh Chaudhary, Sanjit Kumar,
Raj iv Ranjan Dwivedi, Advs., with them for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
C DIPAK MISRA, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. The first respondent, V.N. Public Health & Educational Trust
(for short, "the Trust"), vide letter dated 30.08.2015 fubmitted an
application for establishment of a new medical college from the academic
year 2016-17 to the competent authority of the Central Government and
. the said application dated 30.08.2015 was forwarded by thirGovernment
0
of India to the appellant, Medical Council of lndja (MCI) vide letter
dated 23.09.2015. After initial scrutihy of the application, MCI noticed
that the Essentiality Certificate issued by the Government of Kerala in
favour of the Trust was not valid as the same was not in accordance
with the format prescribed by the Establishment of the Medical College
E Regulations, 1999 (for short, "the Regulations") of the MCI.· Regard
being had to the nature of the Essentiality Certificate and the decision of
this Court in Royal Medical Trust (Registered) and another v. Union
of India & another', the MCI decided to recommend to the Central
Government to disapprove the application submitted by the Trust for
. F establishment ofa new medic!ll college commencing from the academic
year 2016-17. The Government oflndia vide its letter dated 04. 11.2015
called upon the Trust to appear before the Committee on 16.11.2015 to
explain its stand. As the said respondent failed to appear before the
concerned Committee on the date fixed, the matter was decided ex
parte.
G
3. As the factual score would depict, the Trust being aggrieved
by the issuance of an invalid certificate by the State of Kerala and
disaPJ)roval of its scheme for establishment of a new medical college
from the academic year 20 f6- l 7 approached the High Court of Kera la

H '(2015) 10 sec 19
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v.' V. N. PUBLIC HEALTH & 367
EDUCATIONAL TRUST [DIPAK MISRA, J.J
---~-.

at Ernakulam in Writ Petition (C) No. 35705 of2015 .. The learned A
single J~dge vide order dated 25.11.2015 issued the following directions:-
" In the light of Ext.Pl renewal application and :the renewed
Essentiality Certificate, this court.is of the vi~w that petitiOner's
application for establishment of new Medical College shall not be
rejected on account of any deficiency existed in the rehewed B
certificate. In the meanwhile, there shall be a direction to the third
responde~t to pass appropriate orders on Ext.P6 ~ithin ten days.
Post after two weeks."
4. Thereafter the learned single Judge took note of the fresh
. Essentiality Certificate and the following directions were issued as per C
·the order dated 16.12.2015:- ·
.,
"The petitioner is an ~ducational agency. They applied for
establishment of a medical college. The original Essentiality
·'certificate issued by the State Government suffered from defects
ash was not in the required format. Based on the interim order,
the petitioner's application for Essentiality Gertificate keprpending D
before the Central' GoVerriment aria the State Government was
directed to consider \heapplic~tion for fresh revised Esse~tiality ·
certificate. Now it i9 submltted that the petitioner has bbtained a
fresh Essentiality.Certificate and it has bl!en subinitte!d.befor.ethe·
first respondent. Therefore the first respondenfshall consider tne E·
application and take a decision after hearing t]le petition~r and do
. the needfulin-
accordance
. with the law.". · ···.· ' -·.__' .. ' '.
;"•
.
5. Dissatisfied with the·aforesaid order, the appellant preferred
/ WritAppeafNo. 96of2016. Jt was contended before the Division Bench
that pursuant to the order passed by the learned single Judge, the Central F
Government on 23.12.2015 had asked the MCi to review the
recommendation but the said direction was not possible to be adheted'to. ~
on account of the time schedule fixed pertaining to such matters. lt'was
also urged that the letter of intent had to be issued ·by the· Central.
Government on or before i5.01.2016 andsufficienttime was not available ·
for taking further steps in the nlatter. Additionally, it was argued that as G
per the time schedule, MCI was required to give the recommendation to ,
the Central Govemment for issue ofletter of intent by .15.12.2015. The.
·Division Bench, after noting the submissions, passed the following order.-
.,.,.1 :., ; "5. Though it is argu;d by the learned counsef for the appellant .
that the time schedule could not be changed, still the Centraf H
368 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 2 S.C.R.

A Government has sufficient power to extend the time schedule to
a certain extent and when the Central Government had requested
the MCI to consider the application in terms of the letter dated
23.12.2015, we do not think that this Court should interfere in the
matter ,at this stage of the proceedings.
B 6. As far as the judgment is concerned, the learned Single Judge
had only directed the Central Government to consider the
application of the petitioner and take a decision after hearing them.
That process has already been completed and Annexure A2 dated
23. 12.2015 has been issued by the Central Government."
c Being of this view, it declined to interfere with the order passed
by the learned single Judge and dismissed the appeal. ·
6. We have heard Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel along
with Mr. Gaurav Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, Ms. Pinky
Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General along with Mr. B. Krishna
D Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi,
learned senior counsel along with Mr. Ranjiv Ranjan Dwivedi, learned
counsel for respondent No. I and Mr. M.T. George, learned counsel for
respondent No. 3.
7. The focal issue that arises for consideration is whether the
E learned single Judge was justified in directing the MCI to take into
consideration the revised Essentiality Certificate submitted by the Trust
after 30•h of September, 2015, and \vhether the Trust had submitted a
proper and requisite Essentiality Certificate along with the application
on 30'h of August, 2015. As is demonstrable, the Trust had submitted an
incomplete application on 30• ofAugust, 2015 which was forwarded by
F the Central Government to the MCI vide communication dated
23 .09.2015. Be it stated that the MCI had noticed that the Essentiality
Certificate was on record by the time the application was forwarded to
it. The MCI on scrutiny found that the Essentiality Certificate was not
in accordance with the format prescribed by ihe Regulations and
G accordingly did not recommend for the approval of the college.
8. Mr. Singh, learned senior counsel for the appellant, has drawn
our attention to the renewed Essentiality Certificate granted by the
Government of Kerala on 31.08.2015. The relevant part of the said
Certificate reads as follows:-
H
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. V. N. PUBLIC HEALTH & 369
EDUCATIONAL TRUST [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

"The Managing Trustee-Secretary, V.N. Public Health & A
Educational Trust, NRT Nagar, Theni, Tamil Nadu State has
applied for establishment of a Medical College a!- .Walayar in
Palakkad District. On careful consideration of the proposal, the
Government of Kerala has decided to issue an Essentiality
Certificate to the applicant for the establishment of a Medical
B
College with 150 seats. -
It is certified that: ·:
(a) The applicant owns and manages 300 bedded hospital at
Palakkad District.
(b) It is desirable to establish a Medical College in the public c
interest. ·
(c) Establishment ofa Medical College at Palakkad District by
V.N. Public Health & Educational Trust is feasible.
(d) The Essentiality Certificate is issued on condition that all clinical D
materials as per Medical Council of India norms will be made
available in theJ10spital within the stipulated time as fixed by the
Medical Council oflndia.
(e) The Management will share 50% of the total MBBS seats
with Government to fill students from the list prepared by the
E
Commissioner for Entrance Examinations, Kerala.
·· It is further certified that in case the applicant fails to create
infrastructure for the Medical College as per Medical Council of
India norms and fresh admissions are stopped by the ··Central
Government, the State Government shall take over the
F
resl?_onsibility of the students already admitted in the College with
the permission of the Central Government."
fEmphasis added)
9, The pertinent part of the communication dated 19.10.2015
made by the MCI to the.competent authorify of the.Central Government G
. is as follows:-
"lt is to inform you that on perusal of the application/documents
submitted by the applicant, it is noted that as per the Essentiality
Certificate dated 31/08/2015 issued by the Government of Kerala
,H
370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20 I 6] 2 S.C.R.

A "The Essentiality Certificate is issued on condition that all
clinical Alqterials as per Medical Council of India norms will
be made available in the hospital within the stipulated time as
fixed by the Medical Council of India.,. However, prescribed
proforma for Essentiality Certificate states that "(d) Adequate
clinical materials as per the Medical Council of India norms
B
is available. "
In view of the above, it is clear that at the time of issuance of
Essentiality Certificate, the applicant does not fulfill the mandatory
qualifying criteria of the availability of the "Adequate clinical
material as per the Medical Council oflndia norms." Accordingly,
c the applicant does not meet the mandatory criteria prescribed under
the regulations.
In this regard, it is further to inform you that the Hon 'ble Supreme
Court vide its judgment dated 20/08/2015 in W.P. (C) No. 705/
2015-Royal Medical Trust (Regd.) and Another Vs. Union oflndia
D and Anrs. has passed the following Order:-
..... (A) Initial assessment of the application at the first
level should comprise of checking necessary requirements
such as essentiality certificate, consent of affiliation and
physical features like land and hospital requirement. If
E an applicant fails to fulfill these requirements, the
application on the face of it, would be incomplete .and be
rejected. Those who fulfill the basic requirements would
be considered at the next stage ... "
In view of the above, the Council Office has decided to return the
F application for establishment of new medical college at Wayalar,
Kerala (Palakkad Institute of Medical Sciences, Palakkad, Kerala)
by V.N. Public Health & Education Trust, Tamilnadu to the Central
Govt. recommending disapproval of the scheme u/s 1OA of the
IMC Act, 1956 for the academic year 2016-17', as the applicant
G fails to fulfill necessary requirement of availability of the adequate
clinical material as perthe Medical Council oflndia norms."
I 0. On a perusal of the Essentiality Certificate dated 31.08.2015,
it is obvious that it is a conditional certificate. The said fact has been
reiterated by the appellant-MCI vide its communication dated 19.10.2015.
A conditional certificate cannot be regarded as the requisite Certificate
H
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. V. N. PUBI.,IC HEALTH & 371
EDUCATIONAL TRUST [DIPAK MISRA, J.)

·inasmuch as the conditions which are essential to the certificate are A
required to be fulfilled. On the basis of such a certificate, the MCI was
not expected to approve the application submitted by an educational
institution. It had clearly communicated that the prescribed format
stipulates that adequate clinical material as per the MCI norms "is
available". Thus, the availability has to be in praesemi but not to .be a
B
condition to be satisfied at a later stage. That is not the postulate in the
Regulations. In Royal Medical Trust (supra), a three-Judge Bench
referring to Section 10-A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (for
brevity, "the Act') has ruled that:-
"Section I 0-A contemplates submission of a.scheme to the Central
Government in the prescribed form, which scheme is then to be c
referred by the Central Government to MCI for its appropriate
recommendations. The scheme is to be considered having regard
to the features referred to in sub-section (7) and is then placed
before the Central Government along with the recommendations
of MCI. In exercise of powers conferred by Section I 0-A read 0
with Section 33 of the Act, MCI with the previous sanction of the
Central Government has made "Establishment of the Medical
College Regulations, 1999" (hereinafter referred to as "the
Regulations") which were published in the Gazette of India on
28-8-1999. Para 3 of the Regulations lays down that no person
shall establish a medical college except after obtaining prior E
permission of the Central Government by submitting a scheme.
The Regulations then deal with the scheme in extenso. Clauses 1
and 2 of the scheme deal with "eligibility criteria" and "qualifying
criteria", respectively. Clause 3 then sets out certain requirement
in parts ( i), (ii) and (iii) concerning various details about the status F
ofthe applicant in terms of the eligibility criteria, name and address
of the medical college including various facets of the infrastructure
and pianning and the details of the existing hospital including
availability of various-facilities and capacities as also upgradation
and expansion programme."
G
After so stating, the Court referred to para 7 of the Regulations
which deals with the report of the MCI, and para 8 that deals with grant
of permission by the Central Government. Reference has also been made
to the schedule for receipt of applications for establishment of new
medical colleges and increase of admissiori capacity in an existing medical
H
372 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 2 S.C.R.

A college and processing of the applications by the Central Government
and the Medical Council of India. Thereafter, Court has proceeded to
observe:-
" MCI and the Central Government have been vested with
monitoring powers under Section I 0-A and the Regulations. It is
B expected of these authorities to discharge their functions well within
the statutory confines as well as in conformity with the Schedule
to the Regulations. If there is inaction on their part or non-
observance of the time schedule, it is bound to have adverse effect
on all concerned .... "

c I I. After so stating, the three-Judge Bench has directed the
schedule must ideally take care of:-
"( A) Initial assessment of the application at the first level should
comprise of checking necessary requirements such as essentiality
certificate, consent for affiliation and physical features like land
D and hospital requirement. If an applicant fails to fulfil these
requirements, the application on the face ofit, would be incomplete
and be rejected. Those who fulfil the basic requirements would
be considered at the next stage.
(B) Inspection should then be conducted by the Inspectors of
MCI. By very nature such inspection must have an element of
E surprise. Therefore sufficient time of about three to four months
ought to be given to MCI to cause inspection at any time and such
inspection should normally be undertaken latest by January.
Surprise inspection would ensure that the required facilities and
infrastructure are always in place and not borrowed or put in
F temporarily.
(C) Intimation of the result or outcome of the inspection would
then be communicated. If the infrastructure and facilities are in
order, the medical college concerned should be given requisite
permission/renewal. However, if there are any deficiencies or
shortcomings, MCI must, after pointing out the deficiencies, grant
G
to the college concerned sufficient time to report compliance.
(D) If compliance is reported and the applicant states that the
deficiencies stand removed, MCI must cause compliance
'verification. It is possible that such compliance could be accepted
even without actual physical verification but that assessment be
H left entirely to the discretion of MCI and the Central Government.
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. V. N. PUBLIC HEALTH & 373
EDUCATIONAL TRUST [DJPAK MISRA, J.]

In cases where actual physical verification is required, MCI and A
the Central Government must cause such verification before the
deadline.
(E) The result of such verification if positive in favour of the
medical college concerned, the applicant ought to be given requisite
permission/renewal. But ifthe deficiencies still persist or had not B
been removed, the applicant will stand disentitled so far as that
academic year is concerned."
12. Mr. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant
has drawn our attention to the order dated January 18, 2016 passed in
I.A. Nos. 7 & 8 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 76 of 2015 titled Asliis/i
Ranjan & Ors. v. U11io1~ of India & Ors. wherein the Court had taken
c
note ofnotification issued by the MCI with the previous sanction of the
Central Government. The notification has prescribed the time schedule
for receipt of applications for establishment of new medical colleges/
renewal of permission and processing of the applications by the Central
Government and the Medical Council oflndia. The schedule in this regard D
reads as follows:-
S. No. Stage of processing Last date
I Receipt of applications by the Between 15t" June to
Central Government 7th July (both days
inclusive) of any year
2 Forwarding application by the By 15th July E
Central Government to Medical
Council of India
3 Technical Scrutiny, assessment and By 15'" December
Recommendations for Letter of
Permission by the Medical Council .

of India :--- F
4 Receipt of reply/compliance from Two months from
the applicant by the Central receipt of
Government and for personal recommendation
hearing thereto, if any, and from MCI but not
forwarding of compliance by the beyond 31 ' January.
Central Government to the G
Medical Council of India
5 Final re-commendations for the By 30th April
Letter of Permission by the
Medical Council of India
6 Issue of Letter of Permission by By3l"May
the Central Government
H
374 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016]'2 S.C.R.

A Note I. In case of renewal of permission, the app.Jicants shall
submit the application to the Medical Council oflndia by I 5'h July.
xxx xxx xxx
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 33 of the Indian
Medical Council Act, 1956(102) of I 9S6, the Medical Council of
B India with the previous sanction ofthe Central Government, hereby
makes the following Regulations to further amend the "Opening
of a New or Higher Course of Study or Training (including
Postgraduate Course of Study or Training) and increase ·of
Admission Capacity in any Course of Study orTraining(lncluding
a Postgraduate Course of Study or Training) Regulations 2000",
c namely:-
(i) These Regulations may be called the "Opening of a New or
Higher Course of Study or Training (Including Postgraduate Course
of Study or Training) and increase of Admission Capacity in any
Course of Study or Training (including Postgraduate Course of
D Study or Training (Amendment) Regulations 2015.
(ii) They shall come into force from the date of their publication in
the Official Gazette."
13. The two-Judge Bench, after reproducing the entire notification
which deals with various situations, has given the stamp of approval to
E the said Schedule.
14. In th is context, we may profitably refer to the decision in D. Y.
Patil Medical College v. Medical Council of India & Anr. 1 wherein
the controversy had arisen due to rejection of the application of the
institution on the ground that Essentiality Certificate was not filed along
F with the application form. The Court dwelled upon the principles stated
in Educare Charitable Trust v. Union ofIndia & Anr. 3 , Royal Medical
Trust(supra) and various other decisions and, after anaylsing the scheme "
of the Act, has held:-
"lt is apparent from the aforesaid decision and the regulations
G that the application at the first instance is required to be complete
and incomplete applications are liable to be rejected. Thereafter,
there has to be an inspection and other stages of decision-making
process."
2
2015 (JOJ sec 51
H 'All\.2014 SC 902: (2013) 16 sec 474
MEDICAL COUNCIL-OF INDIA v. V. N. PUBLIC HEALTH & 375
EDUCATIONAL TRUST [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

IS. The impugned order p~ssed by the High Court is to be tested A
and adjudged on the anvil of the aforesaid authorities. The application
for grant of approval was filed with the Essentiality Certificate which
was a conditional one and, therefore, a defective one. It was not an
Essentiality Certificate in law. In such a situation, the High Court could
not have directed for consideration of the application for the purpose of
B
the inspection. Such a direction, we are disposed to think, runs counter
to the law laid down in Educare Cflaritable Trust (supra) and Royal
Medical Trust (supra). We may further proceed to state that on the
date of the application, the Essentiality Certificate was not in order. The
Schedule prescribed by the MCI, which had been approved by this Court,
is binding on all concerned. MCI cannot transgress it. The High Court c
could not have gone beyond the same and issued any direction for
conducting an inspection for the academic year 2016-17. Therefore,
the directions issued by the learned single Judge and the affirmation
thereof by the Division Bench are wholly unsustainable.
16. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the judgments and D
orders passed by the High Court are set'aside. It will be open to the
Trust to submit a fresh application for the next academic year in
consonance with the provisions of the Regulations of the MCI and as
per the time Schedule; and in that event, it will be considered appropriately.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to
costs. E

Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeal allowed.