1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 3509 OF 2008 (Shri Shivaji Education Society and another .v. Union of India and another) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. 22ND SEPTEMBER, 2008 Heard Shri Shashank V. Manohar, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri S.K. Mishra, the learned Assistant Solicitor General for the respondent No.1 and Shri R.M. Bhangde, the learned Counsel for the respondent No.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the petition is directed against the communication dated 22.02.2008 issued by the respondent No.1 whereby the petitioners were informed that in view of the gross deficiency as pointed out by the Medical Council of India in its inspection report why the recognition of MBBS Degree granted by the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nasik in respect of students being trained at the petitioner No.2/College should not be withdrawn. The petitioners were also informed not to admit any students for MBBS Course in Academic Session 2008-2009. The learned Counsel for the 2 petitioners further contended that when the matter was listed on 15th September, 2008, Shri Bhangde, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.2 had informed this Court that the respondent No.2 has filed a pursis dated 15th September, 2008 wherein it is stated that the Medical Council of India has taken a decision and recommended the de-recognition of the petitioner No.2/College, to the Central Government, which has to take a final decision about the de-recognition of the petitioner No.2/College. The learned Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that on the said date of hearing, the petitioners informed the Court that the last date of grant of admission to the students in MBBS Course is 30.09.2008 and since the Central Government has not taken decision one way or the other regarding de-recognition of the petitioner No.2/College in view of the recommendations of the Medical Council of India, provisional permission may be granted to the petitioner No.2/College to admit the students on a provisional basis subject to decision of the Central Government. This Court, in the backdrop of the above referred facts and in order to avoid further complications, directed the Central Government to take a decision one way or the other in accordance with law in view of the recommendations of the Medical Council 3 of India on or before 22.09.2008 and also directed the learned Assistant Solicitor General to obtain instructions in this regard and file a short affidavit or make a statement in this regard today. Shri S.K. Mishra, the learned Assistant Solicitor General, on the basis of the instructions received from the respondent No.1, has made a statement that the Central Government, in view of the procedure required to be undertaken before concluding the issue about de- recognition, not in a position to take a decision one way or the other on or before 22.09.2008. However, the Central Government, after following due procedure applicable in this regard, will take a decision accordingly in view of the recommendations of the Medical Council of India, whether the petitioner No.2/College should be de-recognised. Shri Manohar, the learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that if the petitioners are not permitted to admit the students provisionally on or before 30.09.2008 and if at later point of time the Central Government takes a decision not to accept the recommendations of the Medical Council of India, in view of the reply required to be filed by the petitioner No.2/College, in that event irreparable loss would be caused to the students of this area, apart from the loss 4 which would be caused to the College in question. It is, therefore, prayed that the permission to admit the students provisionally may kindly be granted and the direction issued by the Central Government vide impugned communication dated 22nd February, 2008 in this regard may kindly be stayed until further orders. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the respective Counsel. This Court directed the Central Government to take a decision only to avoid any kind of unnecessary complications in the admission process. However, it appears that the Central Government is not in a position to decide whether to accept or reject the recommendations of the Medical Council of India on or before 22.09.2008 in view of the procedure required to be undertaken by the Central government as per Section 19 of the Medical Council of India Act and will be taking the decision accordingly. It is no doubt true that the Medical Council of India has recommended to the Central Government to de- recognise the petitioner No.2/College. However, the fact remains that till such decision is taken by the Central Government, the College in question cannot be treated to be de-recognised as on today. It is also not in dispute that the last date of grant of admission according to merit is 30.09.2008 and in no condition the candidate 5 can be admitted to the first year MBBS Course after 30.09.2008. It is in these peculiar circumstances, we stay the direction of the Central Government issued by impugned communication dated 22nd February, 2008 whereby the petitioners are directed not to admit students for first year MBBS Course for Academic Session 2008-2009, only till such time the decision to de- recognise petitioner No.2/College, is taken by the Central Government and permit the petitioner No.2/College to admit the students as per merit and procedure applicable in this regard. We direct the petitioner No.2/College to notify in the notice as well as in the letter of admission, that the admission is purely ad-hoc and provisional which is subject to decision of the Central Government and shall not create any kind of equity in favour of such students. The letter of admission also must mention that if the Central Government decides to de-recognise the College in that event provisional admission given to the students shall stand cancelled automatically. Shri R.M. Bhangde, the learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 requests this Court to keep the present order in abeyance for a period of three weeks. However, for want of instructions, no such request is coming forward from the Central Government i.e. respondent 6 No.1 who has to take a decision about the de- recognition of the petitioner No.2/College. Since, in view of our order, admission, if any, given by the petitioner No.2/College shall be completely ad-hoc and provisional and would be subject to the result of the decision of the Central Government, there is no point in keeping this order in abeyance. Hence, the request made by the learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 is rejected. In view of the above referred observations and directions, the cause of action in the present petition also comes to an end at this stage. Hence, the writ petitions is disposed of accordingly. Steno copy of this order duly authenticated by the Court Sheristedar be furnished to the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties, on payment of usual charges, to act upon. JUDGE JUDGE *rrg.