IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 2173 OF 2008 Dr. Arati J. Siwal ... Petitioner Vs The College of Physicians & Surgeons Through its Secretary and another ... Respondents Mr. V.M. Thorat i/by Ms. P.V. Thorat for the petitioner. Mr. J.P. Cama, senior advocate with Mr. J. Mitra i/by M/s. Apte & Co. for the respondent No.1. Mr. N.R. Bubna for the respondent No.2. CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J., & S.A. BOBDE , J. DATE : 14TH NOVEMBER , 2008 P.C.: The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 states that application of respondent No.2 for grant/extension of the affiliation is pending with them. He further states that the decision of respondent No.1 shall be communicated to respondent No.2 immediately. 2. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was recommended for admission by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1 vide their letter dated 3rd March, 2008 but could not get enrolled on 29th February, 2008 because of the difficulties stated in the petition itself. 3. In view of the stand taken by the respective parties, we dispose of this petition with the direction to respondent No.1 to pass appropriate orders on the application of Respondent No.2. 4. It is not in dispute before us that application of respondent No.2 was given to respondent No.1 in August, 2008 and we see no reason why the application should not have been considered and decided expeditiously, particularly keeping in view the fact that it affects the future of the students pursuant to their medical courses/graduation/post-graduation. Even the Medical Council of India has prayed for schedule for timely decision of application/affiliation/recommendation to avoid any inconvenience to the admitting authority as well as to protect the future of the students. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that he would need some time to consider the application and pass orders. We reiterate that respondent No.1 ought to have disposed of the application which is pending with it from August, 2008 but in the interest of justice, we grant one final opportunity to the respondent No.1 to consider and pass appropriate orders on the application of the respondent No.2 by 1st December, 2008 positively otherwise the Secretary of the said Respondent No.1 shall be personally liable for not ensuring compliance of the orders of the court. The name of the petitioner had already been recommended. We direct respondent No.2 to recommend the name of the petitioner for admission to the course in accordance with rules. 5. With the above directions, writ petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE, J.