1. Heard Mr. C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri. P. Pandu Ranga Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Sri. Ranga Pujitha Gorantla, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 3, Sri. Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, appearing for 2nd respondent, and learned Govt. Pleader for Medical and Health, appearing for 4th respondent.

2. This writ petition is filed to declare the proceedings No. NMC/UG/2022-23/000192/015776, dated 07.04.2022 issued by 1st respondent and the consequential proceedings No. V.11013/103/2022-ME-01 (FTS No. 8183547), dated 23.09.2022 issued by 2nd respondent, as illegal and set aside the same, and for a consequential direction to 1st and 2nd respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioners for grant of permission for establishment of 2nd petitioner Institution for the academic year 2022-23.

3. FACTS OF THE CASE:

i) The 1st petitioner is a society registered under the Telangana Societies Act, 2001, established for promoting education by establishing educational institutions in the State. The petitioners with an intention to establish a Medical College at Kandlakoya, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, with an intake capacity of 150 Seats, obtained essentiality certificate and consent of affiliation. They have submitted an application dated 26.09.2021 to 1st respondent with all necessary enclosures seeking permission to establish a medical college with an intake capacity of 150 students from the Academic Year 2022-23, in terms of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 (for short 'NMC Act') and the Regulations framed thereunder.

ii) Pursuant to the said application, 1st respondent had instructed the petitioners to submit sworn affidavit stating the details of infrastructural and instructional facilities of the petitioner institution and the attached hospital. They have submitted information dated 30.03.2022, as sought by 1st respondent, along with the supporting material.

iii) The 1st respondent had constituted a team for carrying out an assessment of the teaching and infrastructural facilities of the petitioners Institution. The Inspection team had visited the petitioner institution on 07.02.2002 and 08.02.2002 and had carried out an assessment of the Infrastructural and Instructional facilities. They have also submitted report. A surprise inspection was conducted on 30.03.2022, which is mandatory in terms of the NMC Act.

iv) During the said surprise visit, according to the 1st respondent, the Members of the Committee have found major deficiencies and the petitioners herein have not rectified the same. 1st respondent has also called for certain information from the petitioners on 28.03.2022 and they have submitted the said information on 31.03.2022. Therefore, according to 1st respondent, there are serious deficiencies, the petitioner Institution is not having eligibility criteria and it is lacking both infrastructural and instructional facilities, as required under the NMC Act. Therefore, vide proceedings dated 07.04.2022, 1st respondent had informed the petitioners that the application submitted by it is disapproved and the reasons are specifically mentioned therein for the said disapproval.

v) Feeling aggrieved by the said proceedings dated 07.04.2022, the petitioners herein have preferred an appeal on 23.04.2022 before 1st respondent. As there was no response, the petitioners had submitted a reminder on 21.06.2022. As both the Appeal and Reminder were addressed to 1st respondent mistakenly under the impression that the same would be forwarded to the Appellate Authority and there was no response to the reminder, the petitioners have submitted an appeal to the Ministry on 07.07.2022. The Ministry vide letter dated 07.07.2022 instructed the petitioners to approach 3rd respondent which is Appellate Authority. Thus, the petitioners have preferred First Appeal before 3rd respondent dated 02.08.2022. Vide orders dated 08.08.2022, 3rd respondent had rejected the said appeal on the ground that it is barred by limitation, it cannot be admitted in NMC and the petitioners may like to prefer second appeal, it can prefer before 2nd respondent under Section-28 (6) of the NMC Act. The petitioners have filed Second Appeal and 2nd respondent, vide order dated 23.09.2022 dismissed the said Second Appeal on the grounds specifically mentioned therein. Feeling aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioners herein filed the present writ petition.

4. CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONERS:

i) Mr. C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned senior counsel representing Mr. P. Panduranga Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that the said orders passed by 2nd and 3rd respondents are contrary to the procedure laid down under the NMC Act and also the Regulations. As per Section-28 (3) of the NMC Act, before disapproval of the Scheme, an opportunity to rectify the defects, if any, shall be given to the person concerned, whereas in the present case, the 3rd respondent failed to give the said opportunity.

ii) Learned senior counsel would further submit that the surprise inspection was not conducted properly on 30.03.2022 and the inspection team considered faculty attendance from 9.00 A.M. to 11.00 A.M. only and, therefore, the same is factually incorrect. Deficiencies pointed out by the inspection team are minor and they can be rectified. The deficiencies pointed out in the report do not belong to the petitioner institute. Even then, without considering the said aspects, 1st respondent, vide proceedings dated 07.04.2022 rejected the application/scheme submitted by the petitioners. Due to confusion, the petitioners herein have filed the first appeal before 2nd respondent with some delay. Without considering the same, vide proceedings dated 07.07.2022, 2nd respondent rejected the said appeal and advised the petitioners to file first appeal before 3rd respondent. Accordingly, the petitioners have filed First Appeal before the 3rd respondent on 02.08.2022. Without considering the case of the petitioners, 3rd respondent rejected the First Appeal and therefore, the petitioners have preferred Second Appeal before the 2nd respondent and the same was also dismissed by the 2nd respondent without consideration of actual facts and record.

iii) He would further submit that the inspection team completed the inspection within two (02) hours in respect of Hospital with the built up area of 511038.17 square feet medical college with a built-up area of 1,02,784.6 square feet hostel and other facilities with a built up area of 50632.57 square feet, which is impossible. Thereafter, the inspection team had submitted an Assessment Report dated 30.03.2022, wherein, certain alleged deficiencies in faculty and resident doctors were pointed out. The petitioners herein have submitted the information sought by 1st respondent but the same was not considered. The 1st respondent has concluded in its impugned proceedings that there is a faculty deficiency of 88%, deficiency in pre-clinical department is 92.8%, in para-clinical department is 100% and in clinical department is 79.4%.

iv) With the said submissions, the petitioners sought to set aside the aforesaid proceedings dated 07.04.2022, 23.09.2022 and 08.08.2022, and thereby sought a direction to the respondents to reconsider the petitioners' case for grant of permission for establishment of the 2nd petitioner Institution for the academic year 2022-23 with an intake capacity of 150 students.

5. CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT Nos. 1 AND 3:

i) On the other hand, learned counsel for 1st and 3rd respondents on instructions, would contend that during physical assessment conducted on 07.02.2022 and 08.02.2022 by the 1st respondent and also surprise assessment on 30.03.2022, the teams have found that there are major deficiencies and the petitioners are lacking the eligibility criteria itself. The 1st respondent had called for certain information from the petitioners which they have submitted on 28.03.2022 itself. On considering the same, 1st respondent came to a conclusion that the petitioner society is lacking eligibility criteria and there are major, gross deficiencies and, therefore, it has informed the petitioners about its disapproval.

ii) She would further submit that the petitioners herein have to file an appeal within forty five (45) days before the 2nd respondent in terms of Section-28 of the NMC Act, but they have filed the first appeal with delay. Therefore, 3rd respondent had rejected the said appeal on the said ground alone. Therefore, the petitioners herein have filed Second Appeal before 2nd respondent and the same was also dismissed by 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 23.09.2022. Thus, according to respondent Nos. 1 to 3, the petitioners are not entitled for issuance of Letter of Permission (LOP) for starting medical college for the academic year 2022-2023. The petitioners herein have to comply/rectify the aforesaid deficiencies and submit a proposal to 1st respondent for reconsideration. Instead of doing so, they have filed the present writ petition.

iii) With the said contentions, she sought to dismiss the present writ petition.

6. ANALAYSIS AND FINDINGS OF THE COURT:

i) Government of India had enacted an Act called the National Medical Commission Act, 2019, Act No. 30 of 2019 and it came into force w.e.f. 08.08.2019. Its object is to provide for medical education system that improves access to quality and affordable medical education, ensures availability of adequate and high quality medical professionals in all parts of the country; that promotes equitable and universal healthcare that encourages community health perspective and makes services of medical preference accessible to all the citizens. It promotes national health goals; encourages medical professionals to adopt latest medical research in their work and to contribute to research. It has an objective periodic and transparent assessment of medical institutions and facilities maintenance of a medical register for India and enforces high physical standards in all aspects of medical services. It is flexible to adapt to changing needs and has an effective grievance redressal mechanism and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

ii) As per Section-16 of the NMC Act, the Central Government, by notification, shall constitute the Autonomous Boards under the overall supervision of the commission, to perform the functions assigned to such boards under the NMC Act, including Medical Assessment and Rating Board (MARB).

iii) As per Section-16 (2) of the NMC Act, each board shall be an autonomous body which shall carry out its function under the NMC Act subject to the Regulations made by the Commission.

iv) In exercise of powers conferred by Section-57 of the NMC Act, the National Medical Commission had framed Regulations called "the Minimum Requirements for Annual MBBS Admission Regulations, 2020" (hereinafter called as 'the Regulations' for brevity). The same were notified vide Notification dated 28.10.2020.

v) As per Section-10 of the IMC Act and Section-28 of the NMC Act, every person who intends to start a medical college or Higher Course of study or for increase of intake capacity, has to seek prior permission from the Central Government/NMC.

vi) Section-28 of the NMC Act deals with permission for establishment of new medical college and the same is extracted below:

"i. No person shall establish a new medical college or start any postgraduate course or increase number of seats without obtaining prior permission of the Medical Assessment and Rating Board.

ii. For the purposes of obtaining permission under sub-section (1), a person may submit a scheme to the Medical Assessment and Rating Board in such form, containing such particulars, accompanied by such fee, and in such manner, as may be specified by the regulations.

iii. The Medical Assessment and Rating Board shall, having due regard to the criteria in section 29, consider the scheme received under sub-section (2) and either approve or disapprove such scheme within a period of six months from the date of such receipt.

Provided that the before disapproving such scheme, an opportunity to rectify the defects if any, shall be given to the person concerned.

iv. Where a scheme is approved under sub-section (3), such approval shall be the permission under sub-section (1) to establish new medical college.

v. Where a scheme is disapproved under the 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.

vi. 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 (I) 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."

vii. The Medical Assessment and Rating Board may conduct evaluation and assessment of any medical institution at any time, either directly or through any other expert having integrity and experience of medical profession and without any prior notice and assess and evaluate the performance, standards and benchmarks of such medical institution.

Explanation-For the purposes of this section, the term "person" includes a University, trust or any other association of persons or body of individuals, but does not include the Central Government.

vii) Part-B of Schedule-1 appended to said regulations deals with teaching hospital. B (1) deals with general remarks. As per B. 1.1 of said regulations, at the time of submission of application to the MARB and NMC for intakes up to 150 MBBS students annually, there shall be available a fully functional hospital for at least 2 years with 300 beds or in North East or Hill Area 250 beds, with all necessary infrastructure like OPD, Indoor Wards, OTs, ICUs, Casualty, Labour Room, Laboratories, Blood Bank, CSSD etc., having a minimum of 60% indoor bed occupancy. It should also have been providing services in the Departments of Medicine, Pediatrics, Dermatology, Surgery, Orthopedics, Obstetrics, Gynecology, Ophthalmology, Oto-Rhinolaryngology, Anesthesiology and Radiology.

viii) Annexure-I of the said Regulations deals with requirements to be fulfilled by the applicant colleges for obtaining letter of intent and letter of permission for establishment of new Medical College and yearly renewals for 150 MBBS admissions annually. As per Clause-2 (5A) of the Regulations as amended in the year 2020, it is sine qua non for an applicant to be attached with a hospital fully functional for at least preceding two (02) years. As per the aforesaid reports, from the date of the purchase of basic as well as critical equipment and issue date of licenses for blood bank, AERB Certificate, PNDT Certificate submitted by the petitioner college, it does not fulfill the said requirement and attached hospital has not been functional for more than six months.

ix) In Royal Medical Trust v. Union of India (2015) 10 SCC 19, [LQ/SC/2015/1144] the Hon'ble Apex Court, while considering various aspects of medical education as well as processing of the scheme/application of a Medical College, categorically held that any application which is not accompanied by essentiality certificate, consent for affiliation and particulars of physical features, like land and hospital requirement, should be rejected. Those who fulfill the basic requirements would be considered at the next stage.

x) Regulation-2 (5A) of the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 deals with qualifying criteria and the same is extracted below:

2. QUALIFYING CRITERIA-The eligible persons shall qualify to apply for permission to establish a medical college if the following conditions are fulfilled:-

........

(5A) For Medical Colleges being established from Academic Sessions 2021-22:

That the person owns and manages a fully functional minimum 300 bedded Hospital with necessary infrastructural facilities capable of being developed into a teaching institution. Provided that in North-Eastern States and Hilly Areas, the bed strength required at the time of inception may be 250. An additional 30 beds for emergency care should be mandatory in all such Hospitals. Further the Hospital should be fully functional for a minimum period of two years."

xi) As per the Assessor's guide of the NMC assessor's during the physical assessment of the Medical College shall only consider those faculty members who are present in the College till 11.00 A.M. It is not in dispute that the said guidelines are applied uniformly to all inspections of all Medical Colleges. The said Assessor's guide contains instructions/guidelines with regard to verification of teaching staff, faculty/others, infrastructure etc.

xii) It is relevant to note that there is no allegation against the Members of the Inspection Team with regard to their integrity and bona fides. They have conducted inspection and submitted reports as per which there are serious and grave deficiencies in the petitioner college, both infrastructural and instructional.

xiii) It is also not in dispute that the assessment of the petitioner medical college was conducted by the professors of the Government Medical Colleges, who are experts in their field and possess high integrity. The Assessors of the Council are experts in the field of medicine with unquestionable integrity and reputation. Their findings in the assessment report could not be disputed in the absence of any allegation of personal bias or mala fides. The said principle was also held by the Apex Court in Manohar Lal Sharma v. MCI. (2013) 10 SCC 60 [LQ/SC/2013/1026] As discussed supra, there is no allegation of bias or mala fides by the petitioners against Members of the Inspection Team.

xiv) As per the Regulations, if it is observed during any inspection/assessment of the institute that the deficiency of teaching faculty and/or Residents is more than 30% and/or bed occupancy is <50% (45% in North East, Hilly terrain, etc.), compliance of rectification of deficiencies from such an institute will not be considered for issue of Letter of Permission (LOP)/renewal of permission in that Academic Year.

xv) According to respondent No. 1, inspection team observed the following major deficiencies:

"i. Faculty deficiency found to be 88%-Deficiency in pre-clinical department-92.8%, in Para clinical department-100% and in clinical department-79.4%

ii. Resident deficiency found to be 88%

iii. Laboratory facilities in anatomy physiology and bio-chemistry are not available. Laboratories and lecture theatres are not satisfactory

iv. The laboratory facilities in anatomy including dissection hall and museum, physiology an bio-chemistry laboratories are not available and don't have furniture, microscopes and audio visual aids.

v. Equipment, furniture audio visual instruments were not available.

vi. Hostels for students and residents are inadequate.

vii. Out-patients registered were 650 on the day of assessment, most of them registered after the assessors reached the hospital.

viii. Bed occupancy was 13% as against the requirement of 60% which is grossly inadequate for teaching MBBS students.

ix. Only one each of major, minor, normal delivery and Caesarean sections procedures were reported on the day of assessment.

x. Clinical investigations appear exaggerated to the number of patients found in out-patients and in-patients. There is discrepancy noted between actual investigation done and those entered in records.

xi. Patient examination rooms are ill-equipped and have not properly maintained the records.

xii. In Central library, foreign and Indian journals are less in numbers, only 06 of the 10 foreign journals and 14 of the 20 in Indian Journal's.

xiii. Lifesaving equipment like central suction, central oxygen, pulse oximeter, crash cart. ambubag are not available.

xiv. Operation theatre are ill equipped with one Boyl's machine for the entire operation theatre complex and not having emergency and lifesaving equipment.

xv. In Emergency Medicine department, there is no X-Ray, ECG Machine, USG Machine, ventilators.

xvi. Plaster room were not available in emergency medicine department.

xvii. BSL-II Virology lab is not available and the COVID patients were not treated.

xviii. Sworn affidavit was submitted, and the information does not matched with the assessors report.

xix. It was found from the records that there are major deficiencies of the infrastructure, faculty and the clinical work of the hospital. The major equipment like X-Ray, Ultrasound were purchased in December, 2021. The blood bank licence was obtain on 28.12.2021.

xx. The MoU produced with Mallareddy Hospitals, Hyderabad was not accepted for teaching of students from CMR. Medical College. Mallareddy Medical College has been approved with 200 students and their clinical material and investigation facilities are inadequate for their own medical college.

xxi. The dates of AERB Certificates, Blood Bank license as well as PNDT certificate (all obtained in the last six months) suggest that a functional hospital did not exist before six months. (The applicant who wishes to start a medical college is expected to have a functional hospital for two years or more)."

xvii) The petitioners herein do not have fully functional hospital facility and other facilities in terms of the aforesaid Regulation.

xvii) In Union of India v. All India Children Care and Educational Development Society (2002) 3 SCC 649, [LQ/SC/2002/346] the Apex Court held that only applications from colleges that meet the minimum requirements stipulated by MCI Regulations will be considered for approval under Section-10A of the MCI Act, 1956 (Section-28 of the NMC Act).

xviii) Mr. C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned senior counsel, would submit that, as per Section-28 (3) of the NMC Act before disapproving a scheme, an opportunity to rectify the defects shall be given to the person concerned. Whereas, learned counsel for the 2nd and 3rd respondents would submit that as per Regulation No. 8 of the Regulations, if there are major deficiencies, there is no need to give opportunity to the petitioners to rectify the same. She has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Royal Medical Trust (2015) 10 SCC 19 [LQ/SC/2015/1144] .

xix) As stated above, as per the reports of the Assessment Teams, there are major deficiencies. However, the respondents have afforded an opportunity to the petitioners asking them to submit information and documents and the petitioners have submitted the same. Therefore, the petitioners cannot contend that an opportunity was not given to them.

xx) In Royal Medical Trust (2015) 10 SCC 19, [LQ/SC/2015/1144] the Apex Court held as under:

".....

(A) Initial assessment of the application at the first level should compromise of checking necessary requirements such as essentiality certificate, consent for affiliation and physical features like land and hospital requirement. If 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...."

xxi) With regard to the contention of the petitioners that the Inspection Team considered the faculty only from 9.00 AM to 11.00 AM, is untenable since the said contention is contrary to the spirit of surprise inspection and instructions/guidelines/Regulations. Assessors guide only prescribes attendance to be considered from 9.00 A.M. to 11.00 A.M.

xxii) In Royal Medical Trust (2015) 10 SCC 19, [LQ/SC/2015/1144] the Apex Court held that inspection should be conducted by the Inspectors of MCI and by very nature, such inspection must have an element of surprise.

xxiii) It is not in dispute that the Regulations of the NMC are mandatory, have force of law and are binding nature. The said principle was also laid down by the Apex Court in Medical Council of India v. Chairman, S.R. Educational and Charitable Trust and Medical Council of India v. State of Karnataka (1998) 6 SCC 131 [LQ/SC/1998/634] .

xxiv) As discussed above, the petitioners herein did not make any allegation against the professors/members of the inspection teams with regard to their integrity. The members of inspection team sent by the 1st respondent are experts with high integrity. Their decision and reports pointing out grave deficiencies cannot be ignored. The said principle was also laid down by Apex Court in Manohar Lal Sharma (2013) 10 SCC 60 [LQ/SC/2013/1026] .

xxv) It is relevant to note that to maintain highest standards in Medical Education, in invocation of powers under Section-33 of the NMC Act, the then Medical Council of India framed Regulations laying down minimum standards of infrastructure, teaching and other requirements for conduct of medical courses. The said Regulations are binding and mandatory. It is also not in dispute that in case of any conflict between the MCI Act/Regulations and any State Rule or Regulation, the MCI Act/Regulation shall prevail.

xxvi) The Apex Court in catena of decisions held that there cannot be any relaxation/delusion of standards in MBBS or PG Courses.

xxvii) As discussed supra, 1st respondent has considered the assessment report dated 07/08.02.2022 and 30.03.2022. It has decided to call for some more information from the petitioner college and accordingly, vide letter dated 28.03.2022, 1st respondent had directed the petitioners to furnish information pertaining to equipment procured and licenses/clearances obtained by the petitioner medical college, attached hospital, faculty, clinical material etc. Pursuant to the said letter, the petitioners herein have furnished information along with its letter dated 30.03.2022. On consideration of the same, 1st respondent came to a conclusion that there are major deficiencies in the petitioners college and, therefore, it has decided not to grant letter of permission for establishment of new medical college from the academic year 2022-23 to the petitioner college. The same was communicated to the petitioners vide proceedings dated 07.04.2022.

xxviii) As discussed above, the said proceedings are on consideration of the aforesaid reports of Expert Bodies and, therefore, this Court cannot substitute its opinion by invoking its powers under Article-226 of the Constitution of India. The same cannot be interfered with in a routine manner as held by the Apex Court in Manohar Lal Sharma (2013) 10 SCC 60 [LQ/SC/2013/1026] .

xxix) As discussed supra, the 1st respondent has considered the reports of the Expert Bodies and also information furnished by the petitioners and found that there are grave/serious deficiencies and the petitioner college is lacking both infrastructural and instructional facilities. Therefore, this Court cannot substitute its view with that of the aforesaid Expert Bodies, more particularly, in the absence of any specific allegation made by the petitioners against the members of the aforesaid Expert Bodies with regard to their integrity and bona fides. Thus, the scope of judicial review in a matter like this is very limited as held by the Apex Court in Chairman, J&K State Board of Education v. Feyaz Ahmed Malik (2000) 3 SCC 59 [LQ/SC/2000/193] and Medical Council of India v. Sarang (2001) 8 SCC 427 [LQ/SC/2001/1883] .

xxx) The petitioners herein have to comply/rectify with the aforesaid major/grave deficiencies pointed out by the Expert Bodies and seek for issuance of letter of approval by conducting fresh inspections. Instead of doing so, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.

xxxi) It is relevant to note that as per Section-28 of the Act, if the petitioners are aggrieved by the decision dated 07.04.2022, they have to file appeal before 3rd respondent within 15 days of such disapproval. Instead of filing the appeal before 3rd respondent, they have filed the said appeal before 1st respondent on 23.04.2022 with a delay. According to respondent No. 3, the same was not received by respondent No. 3 and they have received appeal only on 02.08.2022. Therefore, 3rd respondent rejected the said appeal filed by the petitioners vide proceedings dated 08.08.2022 on the ground of delay. There is no explanation from the petitioners with regard to filing of appeal before a wrong authority and the delay. Thereafter, the petitioners herein have filed second appeal before 2nd respondent, which in turn, dismissed the same vide order dated 23.09.2022. It is a reasoned order. There is no error in it. Therefore, this Court cannot interfere with the said reasoned order based on recommendations of the Expert Bodies by invoking its inherent power under Article-226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners herein failed to make out in case to interfere with the said orders.

xxxii) Mr. C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned senior counsel, sought to remand the matter back to 2nd respondent for fresh consideration. As discussed supra, there are serious deficiencies and the petitioners have to comply/rectify the same. Without complying/rectifying the same, the petitioners cannot ask for remand of the matter to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration. The 2nd respondent cannot substitute its view to that of the recommendations of the Expert Bodies. Therefore, the said request of the petitioners to remand the matter to 2nd respondent cannot be accepted. It is impermissible.

7. CONCLUSION:

Viewed from any angle, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly the same is dismissed. However, this order will not preclude the petitioners approaching 1st respondent submitting fresh proposals complying/rectifying the deficiencies pointed out by the Expert Bodies with a request to conduct fresh inspection and grant permission for establishment of Medical College for the Academic Year 2023-2024. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition, shall stand closed.