(2015) 14 S.C.R. 164 A MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. MEDICITI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES (MIMS) & ORS. B (Civil Appeal Nos. 13957-13958 of 2015) DECEMBER 01, 2015 [ANIL R. DAVE AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.]

Education/Educational Institution:c Medical College - MBBS course - Application by Medical Institute-respondent no. 1 - Seeking renewal of permission for increase in admission capacity of MBBS students for the academic year - Pursuant thereto inspection D of Medical Institute - Certain deficiencies found and decision taken by Committee not to renew the permission for admission of increased students - Communication of the said decision to respondent no. 1 -Another inspection carried E out, deficiencies found and the same decision conveyed -Writ petition challenging the said decision - Direction by High Court to Medical Council of India-appellant to conduct a re-inspection of respondent no. 1-institute - On appeal, held: If infrastructure of any training institute is not sufficient to train F and groom its students, even if they pass out at the final examination, may not turn out to be good professionals -Once the apex body supervising education in the field of medicine has set-up a particular set of standards, it would not be proper on the part of the judiciary to direct that body to G digress from the standards so fixed - Since all the norms had not been fulfilled, which were necessary for the purpose of grant of permission to have 50 additional students, the High Court was not justified in dir(!cting the appellant to have additional inspection - Direction by the High Court was .also H not in consonance with the schedule of dates fixed - Thus, 164

MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. MEDICITI INSTITUTE OF 165 MEDICAL SCIENCES (MIMS) the direction given by the High Court is set aside - A Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999. " Manohar Lal Sharma v. Medical Council of India (2013) 10 sec 60 : 2013 (9) SCA 325; Royal Medical Trµst (Regd.) and Anr. v. Union oflndia & B Anr. (2015) 9 SCALE 68 - referred to. Case Law Reference 2013 (9) SCA 325 referred to Para 14 c(2015) 9 SCALE 68 referred to Para 17 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 13957-13958 of 2015. From the Judgment and Order dated 13.08.2015 of the D High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 7101 of 2015 & C. M. No. 13021 of 2015. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv., Gaurav Sharma, Prateek Bhatia for the Appellant. E Dr. Raj iv Dhawan, Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Advs., A. Ramesh, Amit Kumar, Ankit for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by F ANIL R. DAVE, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Looking at the facts of the case and at the request of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it was decided to hear the appeals expeditiously. G 3. A short issue that has come up for consideration in these appeals is whether it was open to the High Court to give a direction to the Medical Council of India (for short, the MCl)-the appellant herein, by its order dated 13.08.2015, to conduct H 166 SUPREME GOU.RT REPORTS (2015] 14 S.C.R.

A a re-inspection of Respondent no.1 institute. The said direction was. given in relation to an application made by Respondent no.1 for renewal of permission for increase in admission capacity of MBBS students from 100 to 150 for the academic year 2015-16. B 4. Respondent no.1 is a hospital-cum-medical college, which had been formerly granted permission to teach 100 MBBS students per academic year. From 2012-2013, respondent no.3 had permitted increase in intake capacity from c 100 to 150 MBBS students. For the academic year 2013-14, respondent no.3 had renewed the said permission. Respondent no.1 wanted to get the said permission renewed for the academic year 2014-15 and therefore, it had submitted an application, as prescribed under the Establishment of D Medical College Regulations, 1999. The said application had been rejected as the Executive Committee of the MCI found certain deficiencies in the functioning of Respondent no.1 institute. Some litigation had taken place with regard to the said rejection, but the said rejection is not much relevant for E the present petition. 5. For renewal of the said permission for additional 50 MBBS students for the academic year 2015-16, another application was made by respondent no.1 and in pursuance F of the said application, an inspection of Respondent No.1 institute had taken place on 5th and 5th December, 2014 by the MCI and at the time of said inspection, following deficiencies had been noted by the representatives of the MCI:

"1. Deficiency of faculty is 10% as detailed in report. G 2. Shortage of Residents is 16.5% as detailed (n report. 3. Common Room tor Girls is in corridor and H requires improvement. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. MEDICITI INSTITUTE OF 157 MEDICAL SCIENCES (MIMS) [ANIL R. DAVE, J.] 4. 0. T.: There are 15 tables in 11 0. T.s indicating A more than 1 table in several 0. T.s which is not as per norms. 5. Other deficiencies as pointed out in the assessment report." B 5. Report of the aforestated inspection, which had taken place on 5th and 5th December, 2014, was placed before the Executive Committee of the MCI on 13th January, 2015 for its consideration. The aforestated deficiencies were fqund by the C Executive Committee of the MCI of serious nature and therefore, the Committee decided "to recommend to the Central Government not to renew the permission for admission of 4th batch of MMBS students against the increased intake i.e. from 100 to 150" students of Respondent no.1 and the D said decision was communicated to Respondent no.1 by the MCI under its letter dated 21" January, 2015.

7. Though not much relevant, it is pertinent to note that in pursuance of some litigation which had taken place in the meantime, Respondent no.1 gave admission to 50 additional E students to MBBS course for the academic year 2014-15 on the basis of an undertaking given to this Court. Thus, in fact, 150 students were given admission to MBBS course for the academic year 2014-15. The said undertaking was ultimately F found to be incorrect by the MCI. 8. Respondent no.1 institute had thereafter addressed a letter dated 14th February, 2015 to the MCI, wherein it was claimed that the deficiencies which had been fouhd by the MCI at the time of inspection of Respondent no.1, which had taken G place on 5th and 5th December, 2014, had been removed. Respondent no.1 was also given a personal hearing by • respondent no.3. 9. Respondent no.3 had requested the MCI to reconsider H ' I I \ ' \ 168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS .. (2015] 14 S.C.R.. \ ~. ,...., : , . ' .•~1:·'.:'·\~:., . . .·, I ..

A ·the case of Respondent no.1 institute and in pursuance of the · said request, the assessors of the MCI had carried out another . inspection on Sth. May, 2015 and submitted the. report of · ' to' the Executive• • ' Committee' " ' < \ • of' •, ' the• MCI.• Even at • inspection . the time of inspection, which had taken place on Bth May, 2015, B ~·several deficiencies had been found and therefore, ultimately ·on 13th May, 2015, the Executive Committee:ofthe MCI decided to recommend to the Central Government not to renew .: th.e permission for admission of 4th batch of increased MBBS :1 •. students from 100 toJ 50 under Section 1OA of the IMC Act,,. C . 1956 for the academic year2015-16 .• The said decision had:; been communicated by Respondent no.3 to Respondent no.1.~J under letter dated 15~ June, 2015. , . . ; : <." , .. , : ~ .. " .~ .. , ; ' , . ' . - . • ' • .: .• ' • •- , -' . ~; :I • . ' .• ~ -• ,· ·. 1o: In the aforestated circumstances, the application for'· D increase in intake of 50 MBBS students had beeri'rejected: • ' ! .· .·;'.. <';···., ;,,1,-,.,·;.--,· .. ,·~- -~:· .. ·. ·::··-·.:.:~·'.~

11. Aggrieved' thereby, r Respondent No~ 1. filed Writ.· Petition (C) No. 7101 of 2015 before the High Court of Delhi challenging. ' •the. . communication. ' ..dated' - - ' 15.6:2015- ) . - made. . ·, . to .'t· E . Respondent No.1 by Respondent No.3, whereby the ' application' made by RespondentNo.1 for increasing iniake'' ~ i.e.,· frorri'1'06· >! :l to 1" scii'-seats•-·'Iior r''•'·'•\'academic·'•". session,· ·, t .. ,,,,.2015-16)'' , .••had,,~,-.) b¢en finally reject~d'.' In ,t~~ .~:a.i,d petlti?.~.. tbe if!1pugne9 9i.qer'.' dated 3.08.2015. has. been· ,, -- J.•·· .·, -- ·-,·~ ,,, ... passed;,•r:·'"'!~ .~r--).~I:•.whereby.'r--:·•-.,the present•...... - .. ~- • F. Appellant-the MCI has been directed·to'carry out' another'. { ., , ..... \ ~-\·'· ..... -' ,, -~~ "- "" inspection to find out whether the deficiencies found at an . earlie~ point of time have been remov~d. 1·:·, J:-i •: .b . ~--· ",-; ,.·- :,, .·, •: _,..,,. '\' ";~'' - ', ',. _:~ •. ~· ;,. >..,..:, .... ; ... .. \....,.• • . · 12.' - Being· · ' ' aggrieved. I ' by ' the ' aforestated' .-, ·. -- -· • . - order-1 ~ ' - · passed- ·.·- ,... •· '·" G, by the.High, Court, the Appellant hc;tsappr~ac~ed ~~is Cowr . with a prayer that the said interim direction be quashed, as according' . " '' ·1 to , the• Appellant,' ' '' · Respondentno'.i. 1' I '. · • •' · ' f'' ·• cannot"• - "I -be ~1 permitted to have 50 more students for acaderriic year 2015~ · .. 16. ·"_..c .. ,·::':1· ';~t~ ;-.

H ·.. I~.' .. ' I'. _.,.- \ '> . -. - I MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. MEDICITI INSTITUTE OF '169 MEDICAL SCIENCES (MIMS) [ANIL R. DAVE, J.] . 13. In the aforestated circumstances, present appeals A have been filed before this Court and upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we are of the view that the High Court has committed an error by directing the Appellant to carry out another insp'ection: '·'. ,) -t '.',:':··~,--,<:.:··'"'.;Ji;,: ,·.)':?!~l~• ·",_i' .. ·,~.·-,- 1T 8

14. Looking at the fact that the norms set up by the Appellant had not been fulfiiled by Respondent No~ 1, in our opinion, it-would not be ·just and proper to constrain th"e Appellant to·carry'out one more inspection which is not warranted under any legal provision. It is a well-known fact c that if infrastructure of any training institute is not sufficient to train and groom its students, the students, even if they pass out at the final examination, may not turn out to be good professionals.' At this juncture, we thinkit proper to quote what this Court'has said in Manohar Lat'Sharma'vs.'·Medical D Council of/ndia (2013) 10 SQC 60: ' ... ' ' • '., ' • ,· : - • '~·.:, i ',.~ :: .__ I ., ·• "2S: We'have already dealt with, in-extenso, ·the · · deficiencies pointed out by the MCI team in its'report ·i 'dated 6-7"2013.!ln our view~ the deficiencies pointed E ·out are fundamental and very crucial, which cannot be ignored in the interest of medical education and in the. -' · interest of the student community. MCI and the College ·' authorities tiave to bear in mind; what is prescribed is . '' · · · the minimum, if MCI dilutes the minimum standards; they F will be doing violence to the statutory requirements. MCI : 'is duty-bound to cancel the request if fundamental ancf ' ' . •'minimum_ requirements are not satisfied or-else the .. , College_ Y"ill .b~ pr~du~ng half-baked -~rid poor_~uality . , _, do.ctors. and they.would do more' ~arrp_!o thesoc_ieiy G than service. In our view, the infirmities'' • 1 I pointed"' .. ,,. :>'out- by the inspection team are serious deficiencies and the ' . '- Board of Governors of MCI rightly not granted approval · 1,-/ '. for renewal of permission for the third batch of 150 I MBBSstudents for the academic year 2013-2014." H !

•\ 170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015) 14 S.C.R. A 15. Looking at the aforestated observations made by this Court and in view of the fact that all the norms had not been fulfilled, which were necessary for the purpose of grant of. permission to have 50 additional students, in our opinion, it was not just and proper on the part of the High Court to direct B the Appellant to have additional inspection. 16. Once the apex body supervising education in the field of medicine has set-up a particular set of standards, it would not proper on the part of the judiciary to direct that body to c digress from the standards so fixed. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the direction given by the High Court is not proper.

17. We have further noted the fact thatthe la'J'."with regard to grant of permission to a medical college or with regard to 0 permission for having additional students is regulated by the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999. We have duly considered the said Regulations in the case of Raval Medical Trust <Reqd.J and Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr. E (2015) 9 SCALE 68. This Court has prescribed a time schedule which is to be followed by all authorities concerned either for giving permission for establishment of a new medical college or for the purpose of increasing the strength of students. The direction given by the High Court is also not in consonance F with the said schedule of dates fixed by this Court and therefore also, in our opinion, the said direction is not justifiable. 18. For the aforestated reasons, we set aside the direction given by the High Court dated 13.8.2015, whereby G the Appellant has been asked to carry out inspection of Respondent no.1 institute and therefore, allow these appeals with no order as to costs. Nidhi Jain Appeals allowed.

(2015) 14 S.C.R. 164 A MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. MEDICITI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES (MIMS) & ORS. B (Civil Appeal Nos. 13957-13958 of 2015) DECEMBER 01, 2015 [ANIL R. DAVE AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.]

Education/Educational Institution:c Medical College - MBBS course - Application by Medical Institute-respondent no. 1 - Seeking renewal of permission for increase in admission capacity of MBBS students for the academic year - Pursuant thereto inspection D of Medical Institute - Certain deficiencies found and decision taken by Committee not to renew the permission for admission of increased students - Communication of the said decision to respondent no. 1 -Another inspection carried E out, deficiencies found and the same decision conveyed -Writ petition challenging the said decision - Direction by High Court to Medical Council of India-appellant to conduct a re-inspection of respondent no. 1-institute - On appeal, held: If infrastructure of any training institute is not sufficient to train F and groom its students, even if they pass out at the final examination, may not turn out to be good professionals -Once the apex body supervising education in the field of medicine has set-up a particular set of standards, it would not be proper on the part of the judiciary to direct that body to G digress from the standards so fixed - Since all the norms had not been fulfilled, which were necessary for the purpose of grant of permission to have 50 additional students, the High Court was not justified in dir(!cting the appellant to have additional inspection - Direction by the High Court was .also H not in consonance with the schedule of dates fixed - Thus, 164

MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. MEDICITI INSTITUTE OF 165 MEDICAL SCIENCES (MIMS) the direction given by the High Court is set aside - A Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999. " Manohar Lal Sharma v. Medical Council of India (2013) 10 sec 60 : 2013 (9) SCA 325; Royal Medical Trµst (Regd.) and Anr. v. Union oflndia & B Anr. (2015) 9 SCALE 68 - referred to. Case Law Reference 2013 (9) SCA 325 referred to Para 14 c(2015) 9 SCALE 68 referred to Para 17 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 13957-13958 of 2015. From the Judgment and Order dated 13.08.2015 of the D High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 7101 of 2015 & C. M. No. 13021 of 2015. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv., Gaurav Sharma, Prateek Bhatia for the Appellant. E Dr. Raj iv Dhawan, Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Advs., A. Ramesh, Amit Kumar, Ankit for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by F ANIL R. DAVE, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Looking at the facts of the case and at the request of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it was decided to hear the appeals expeditiously. G 3. A short issue that has come up for consideration in these appeals is whether it was open to the High Court to give a direction to the Medical Council of India (for short, the MCl)-the appellant herein, by its order dated 13.08.2015, to conduct H 166 SUPREME GOU.RT REPORTS (2015] 14 S.C.R.

A a re-inspection of Respondent no.1 institute. The said direction was. given in relation to an application made by Respondent no.1 for renewal of permission for increase in admission capacity of MBBS students from 100 to 150 for the academic year 2015-16. B 4. Respondent no.1 is a hospital-cum-medical college, which had been formerly granted permission to teach 100 MBBS students per academic year. From 2012-2013, respondent no.3 had permitted increase in intake capacity from c 100 to 150 MBBS students. For the academic year 2013-14, respondent no.3 had renewed the said permission. Respondent no.1 wanted to get the said permission renewed for the academic year 2014-15 and therefore, it had submitted an application, as prescribed under the Establishment of D Medical College Regulations, 1999. The said application had been rejected as the Executive Committee of the MCI found certain deficiencies in the functioning of Respondent no.1 institute. Some litigation had taken place with regard to the said rejection, but the said rejection is not much relevant for E the present petition. 5. For renewal of the said permission for additional 50 MBBS students for the academic year 2015-16, another application was made by respondent no.1 and in pursuance F of the said application, an inspection of Respondent No.1 institute had taken place on 5th and 5th December, 2014 by the MCI and at the time of said inspection, following deficiencies had been noted by the representatives of the MCI:

"1. Deficiency of faculty is 10% as detailed in report. G 2. Shortage of Residents is 16.5% as detailed (n report. 3. Common Room tor Girls is in corridor and H requires improvement. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. MEDICITI INSTITUTE OF 157 MEDICAL SCIENCES (MIMS) [ANIL R. DAVE, J.] 4. 0. T.: There are 15 tables in 11 0. T.s indicating A more than 1 table in several 0. T.s which is not as per norms. 5. Other deficiencies as pointed out in the assessment report." B 5. Report of the aforestated inspection, which had taken place on 5th and 5th December, 2014, was placed before the Executive Committee of the MCI on 13th January, 2015 for its consideration. The aforestated deficiencies were fqund by the C Executive Committee of the MCI of serious nature and therefore, the Committee decided "to recommend to the Central Government not to renew the permission for admission of 4th batch of MMBS students against the increased intake i.e. from 100 to 150" students of Respondent no.1 and the D said decision was communicated to Respondent no.1 by the MCI under its letter dated 21" January, 2015.

7. Though not much relevant, it is pertinent to note that in pursuance of some litigation which had taken place in the meantime, Respondent no.1 gave admission to 50 additional E students to MBBS course for the academic year 2014-15 on the basis of an undertaking given to this Court. Thus, in fact, 150 students were given admission to MBBS course for the academic year 2014-15. The said undertaking was ultimately F found to be incorrect by the MCI. 8. Respondent no.1 institute had thereafter addressed a letter dated 14th February, 2015 to the MCI, wherein it was claimed that the deficiencies which had been fouhd by the MCI at the time of inspection of Respondent no.1, which had taken G place on 5th and 5th December, 2014, had been removed. Respondent no.1 was also given a personal hearing by • respondent no.3. 9. Respondent no.3 had requested the MCI to reconsider H ' I I \ ' \ 168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS .. (2015] 14 S.C.R.. \ ~. ,...., : , . ' .•~1:·'.:'·\~:., . . .·, I ..

A ·the case of Respondent no.1 institute and in pursuance of the · said request, the assessors of the MCI had carried out another . inspection on Sth. May, 2015 and submitted the. report of · ' to' the Executive• • ' Committee' " ' < \ • of' •, ' the• MCI.• Even at • inspection . the time of inspection, which had taken place on Bth May, 2015, B ~·several deficiencies had been found and therefore, ultimately ·on 13th May, 2015, the Executive Committee:ofthe MCI decided to recommend to the Central Government not to renew .: th.e permission for admission of 4th batch of increased MBBS :1 •. students from 100 toJ 50 under Section 1OA of the IMC Act,,. C . 1956 for the academic year2015-16 .• The said decision had:; been communicated by Respondent no.3 to Respondent no.1.~J under letter dated 15~ June, 2015. , . . ; : <." , .. , : ~ .. " .~ .. , ; ' , . ' . - . • ' • .: .• ' • •- , -' . ~; :I • . ' .• ~ -• ,· ·. 1o: In the aforestated circumstances, the application for'· D increase in intake of 50 MBBS students had beeri'rejected: • ' ! .· .·;'.. <';···., ;,,1,-,.,·;.--,· .. ,·~- -~:· .. ·. ·::··-·.:.:~·'.~

11. Aggrieved' thereby, r Respondent No~ 1. filed Writ.· Petition (C) No. 7101 of 2015 before the High Court of Delhi challenging. ' •the. . communication. ' ..dated' - - ' 15.6:2015- ) . - made. . ·, . to .'t· E . Respondent No.1 by Respondent No.3, whereby the ' application' made by RespondentNo.1 for increasing iniake'' ~ i.e.,· frorri'1'06· >! :l to 1" scii'-seats•-·'Iior r''•'·'•\'academic·'•". session,· ·, t .. ,,,,.2015-16)'' , .••had,,~,-.) b¢en finally reject~d'.' In ,t~~ .~:a.i,d petlti?.~.. tbe if!1pugne9 9i.qer'.' dated 3.08.2015. has. been· ,, -- J.•·· .·, -- ·-,·~ ,,, ... passed;,•r:·'"'!~ .~r--).~I:•.whereby.'r--:·•-.,the present•...... - .. ~- • F. Appellant-the MCI has been directed·to'carry out' another'. { ., , ..... \ ~-\·'· ..... -' ,, -~~ "- "" inspection to find out whether the deficiencies found at an . earlie~ point of time have been remov~d. 1·:·, J:-i •: .b . ~--· ",-; ,.·- :,, .·, •: _,..,,. '\' ";~'' - ', ',. _:~ •. ~· ;,. >..,..:, .... ; ... .. \....,.• • . · 12.' - Being· · ' ' aggrieved. I ' by ' the ' aforestated' .-, ·. -- -· • . - order-1 ~ ' - · passed- ·.·- ,... •· '·" G, by the.High, Court, the Appellant hc;tsappr~ac~ed ~~is Cowr . with a prayer that the said interim direction be quashed, as according' . " '' ·1 to , the• Appellant,' ' '' · Respondentno'.i. 1' I '. · • •' · ' f'' ·• cannot"• - "I -be ~1 permitted to have 50 more students for acaderriic year 2015~ · .. 16. ·"_..c .. ,·::':1· ';~t~ ;-.

H ·.. I~.' .. ' I'. _.,.- \ '> . -. - I MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. MEDICITI INSTITUTE OF '169 MEDICAL SCIENCES (MIMS) [ANIL R. DAVE, J.] . 13. In the aforestated circumstances, present appeals A have been filed before this Court and upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we are of the view that the High Court has committed an error by directing the Appellant to carry out another insp'ection: '·'. ,) -t '.',:':··~,--,<:.:··'"'.;Ji;,: ,·.)':?!~l~• ·",_i' .. ·,~.·-,- 1T 8

14. Looking at the fact that the norms set up by the Appellant had not been fulfiiled by Respondent No~ 1, in our opinion, it-would not be ·just and proper to constrain th"e Appellant to·carry'out one more inspection which is not warranted under any legal provision. It is a well-known fact c that if infrastructure of any training institute is not sufficient to train and groom its students, the students, even if they pass out at the final examination, may not turn out to be good professionals.' At this juncture, we thinkit proper to quote what this Court'has said in Manohar Lat'Sharma'vs.'·Medical D Council of/ndia (2013) 10 SQC 60: ' ... ' ' • '., ' • ,· : - • '~·.:, i ',.~ :: .__ I ., ·• "2S: We'have already dealt with, in-extenso, ·the · · deficiencies pointed out by the MCI team in its'report ·i 'dated 6-7"2013.!ln our view~ the deficiencies pointed E ·out are fundamental and very crucial, which cannot be ignored in the interest of medical education and in the. -' · interest of the student community. MCI and the College ·' authorities tiave to bear in mind; what is prescribed is . '' · · · the minimum, if MCI dilutes the minimum standards; they F will be doing violence to the statutory requirements. MCI : 'is duty-bound to cancel the request if fundamental ancf ' ' . •'minimum_ requirements are not satisfied or-else the .. , College_ Y"ill .b~ pr~du~ng half-baked -~rid poor_~uality . , _, do.ctors. and they.would do more' ~arrp_!o thesoc_ieiy G than service. In our view, the infirmities'' • 1 I pointed"' .. ,,. :>'out- by the inspection team are serious deficiencies and the ' . '- Board of Governors of MCI rightly not granted approval · 1,-/ '. for renewal of permission for the third batch of 150 I MBBSstudents for the academic year 2013-2014." H !

•\ 170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015) 14 S.C.R. A 15. Looking at the aforestated observations made by this Court and in view of the fact that all the norms had not been fulfilled, which were necessary for the purpose of grant of. permission to have 50 additional students, in our opinion, it was not just and proper on the part of the High Court to direct B the Appellant to have additional inspection. 16. Once the apex body supervising education in the field of medicine has set-up a particular set of standards, it would not proper on the part of the judiciary to direct that body to c digress from the standards so fixed. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the direction given by the High Court is not proper.

17. We have further noted the fact thatthe la'J'."with regard to grant of permission to a medical college or with regard to 0 permission for having additional students is regulated by the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999. We have duly considered the said Regulations in the case of Raval Medical Trust <Reqd.J and Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr. E (2015) 9 SCALE 68. This Court has prescribed a time schedule which is to be followed by all authorities concerned either for giving permission for establishment of a new medical college or for the purpose of increasing the strength of students. The direction given by the High Court is also not in consonance F with the said schedule of dates fixed by this Court and therefore also, in our opinion, the said direction is not justifiable. 18. For the aforestated reasons, we set aside the direction given by the High Court dated 13.8.2015, whereby G the Appellant has been asked to carry out inspection of Respondent no.1 institute and therefore, allow these appeals with no order as to costs. Nidhi Jain Appeals allowed.