SHRI VENKATESHWARA UNIVERSITY THROUGH  ITS REGISTRAR AND ANOTHER versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
[2017] 11 S.C.R. 1061, Supreme Court of India, 2017
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Arguments
[2017] 11 S.C.R. 1061 
SHRI VENKATESHWARA UNIVERSITY THROUGH 
A 
ITS REGISTRAR AND ANOTHER 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
(Writ Petition (C) No.445 of2017). 
SEPTEMBER 01, 2017 
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, AMITAVA ROY AND 
A.M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.] 
·B 
Education/Educational Institutions - Admission in MBBS c 
course for the academic years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 - MCI 
had inspected the petitioner-university on 11'"& 12'" November 2016 
and found certain deficiencies ~ However, the Oversight Committee 
recommended for grant of Letter of Permission (LOP) and the same 
was granted by the Central Government for the year 2016-17 -
MCI conducted another inspection on 9'" December, 2016 i.e. almost D 
after a month and gave negative recommendatiiJn for the years 
2017-2018 and 2018-2019 - Union of India debarred petitioner-
University from admitting students in MBBS course for academic 
year 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 - Petitioner contended that MCI 
. 
. 
. could not have conducted a surprise inspection on 9'" December E 
2016 as per regulations - Held: On a careful reading of clause 
8(3)(l)(d), it is clear and unambiguous that the obligation of the 
MCI is to ensure that inspections are not carried out at least 2 days 
before and 2 days after an important religious and festival holidays 
declared by the Central/State Government - In instant case, the 
inspection team had gone for inspection on 9'" December and they · F 
were deprived to carry out inspection - Whereas the festival was on 
12'"
December - Inspection was thus not covered by the concept of 
two days of moratorium - In such situation when the institution 
does not allow the team of the MCI or the assessors of the MCI, it 
will be adding premium to deviancy - Conferment of this kind of G 
privilege absolutely unwarranted - Therefore, direction sought for 
renewal of LOP for the academic session 2017-2018 not accepted 
- However, students admitted for academic session 2016-2017 to 
continue their stUdies - MCI directed to send the inspection team to 
the institution for academic session 2017-2018 -After the report is 
1061 
H
1062 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 11 S.C.R. 
A filed, the MCI shall apprise the institution with regard to the 
deficiencies and give date to the institution for removal of the same 
- Court to appreciate the inspection report and the deficiencies 
and the action taken up thereon by the institution on the next date 
fixed - Further, the renewal application submitted for the academic 
B 
session 2017-2018 to be treated as the application for the academic 
session 2018-2019 - Establishment of Medical College Regulations 
1999 - cl.8(3)( l)(d). 
While issuing directions, the Court 
HELD: 1. The thrust of the matter is whether the inspecting 
C team could have inspected on 9th December, 2016, when festival 
was on 12th December, 2016. [Para 12] (1071-B-C] 
2. On a careful reading of the Clause 8(3)(1)(d) of the 
Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999, it is quite 
D clear and unambiguous that the obligation of the MCI is to ensure 
that inspections are not to be carried out at least 2 days before 
and 2 days after an important religious and festival holidays 
declared by the Central/State Government. In the clause, the 
words which gain significance are "important religious and festival 
E holidays". On 12th December, 2016, it was Milad-un-Nabi and it 
is .the day of festival. The inspection was done on 9th December, 
2016, which was a Friday. The amended clause of the notification 
state only covers 2 days before the festival declared as a holiday 
by the
Central/State Government and 2 days thereafter. In the 
F case at hand, the inspection team had gone for inspection on 9th 
December, 2016, and they were deprived to carry out the 
inspection. It was not covered by the concept of two days of 
moratorium. In such a situation when the Institution does not 
allow the team of the MCI or the assessors of the MCI, it will be 
G addin'g premium to deviancy. Conferment of this kind of privilege 
is absolutely unwarranted. Therefore, the directions sought for 
grant of renewal of Letter of Permission for the academic session 
2017-2018 is not acceptable. 
[Para 16] (1072-H; 1073-A-D] 
H
SHRI VENKATESHWARAUNIVERSITY THR. ITS REGISTRAR 1063 
AND ANOTHER v. U.0.1. AND ANR. 
3. It is appropriate that the students who have been A 
admitted in the Institution for the academic session 2016-2017, 
shall continue their studies. The MCI shall send the inspecting 
team to the Institutio_n within a period of two months. After the 
report is filed, the MCI shall apprise the Institution with regard 
to the deficiencies and give a date for removal of the same so 
that the Institution would be in a position to do the needful. The 
B 
inspection that will be carried out and the further follow up action 
shall be done for the academic session 2018-2019. The removal 
application that was submitted for the academic session 2017-18 
may be treated as the application for the academic session 2018- c 
19. [Paras 17, 18] [1073-E-H] 
Glocal Medical College and Super Speciality Hospital 
& Research Centre v. Vnion of India and Another 
(2018) 1 SCC 188 ; Kanachur Islamic Education Trust 
D 
(R) v. Union of India and Another (2017) 10 SCALE 
321 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
(2018) 1 sec 188 
referred to 
Para 7 
2017 (10) SCALE 321 
referred to 
Para9 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.445 
. of2017. 
Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia. 
Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Harin P. Raval, Sr. Advs, Gaurav Bhatia, 
Utkarsh Jaiswal, Abhishek Singh, Advs for the Petitioners. 
E 
F 
Maninder Singh, ASG, R. Balasubramanian, Gaurav Sharma, 
G 
Ms.Amandeep Kaur, Prateek
Bhatia, Dhawal Mohan, Prabhas Bajaj, 
Ms. Aarti Sharma, G.S. Makker, Sarad Kumar Singhania, Advs for the 
Respondents. 
H
1064 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 11 S.C.R. 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DIPAK MISRA, CJI. 1. In this writ petition preferred under 
Article 32 of the Constitution ofindia, the petitioner-University and its 
functionary have prayed for issue of a direction for quashment of the 
B order dated 31" May, 2017, contained in letter No.U-12012/ 27/2016-
ME-I [3084749] debarring the petitioners from admitting the students in 
MBBS course for academic sessions 2017·2018 and 2018-2019 and 
authorizing the respondent No.2, the Medical Council of India (MCI) 
not to encash the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioners to the 
. C MCI and further to issue writ of mandamus or any other direction in the 
nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant renewal of 
permission for academic year 2017-2018 and further to admit the students 
in the said academic session. 
2. The assertions made in the writ petition and the documents 
D annexed thereto exposit the history oflitigation which, we are inclined to 
think, has a different colour. Suffice it to note that for the academic 
session 2016-2017, the MCI had inspected the Institution and found 
certain deficiencies. The summary of assessment, which was submitted 
by a team of four doctors on l21h November, 2016, has been brought on 
E record. Paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the said summary of assessment 
read as follows:-
"9. Any other remarks: Most of the faculty as well as resident 
doctors has joined this
institute in last one & half month prior to 
F 
the inspection. It is not known or could not be verified whether 
those faculties where considered by MCI in the same academic 
year where they were previously working or whether these faculty 
is appointed on permanent. basis or temporarily. Most of them did 
not have permanent address proof. Patients in the ward were 
G 
admitted with very vague complains which did not require 
admission, like pain abdomen, itching, cough mild fever, joint pains, 
irritation in the eyes, low back pains. In some wards both Male 
and female patients were admitted in the same ward (Like 
.Psychiatry). In pediatrics patients above age of 14 were admitted 
H 
with vague/no complain.
SHRI VENKATESHWARA UNIVERSITY THR. ITS REGISTRA~ 1065 
AND ANOTHER v. U.O.I. AND ANR. [DIPAK MISRA, CJI] 
10. No patients were in labor. No Lscs, No Normal Delivery on 
A 
the date of inspection. 
11. Only one major surgery on the date of inspection (Open 
cholecystectomy) & One minor (D & C). 
Ii College website does not show riames of all the faculty 
B 
members (Like only one name appears on website out of five 
present in Pharmacology.)" 
3. We are not referring to other aspects of the summary of 
assessment, as the deficiencies pointed out are within the permissibl~ 
limit. Be it noted, the deficiencies which are noted earlier were by the 
C 
inspecting team, and the Oversight Committee constituted by this Court 
accepted the explanation offered 9Y the University and imposed certain 
conditions and recommended for grant of Letter of Permission and 
eventually the sa.me was granted by the Central Government for the 
year 2016-17. 
D 
4. After the inspection that was conducted on 11th and J2th of 
November, 2016, another inspection took place on 9th December, 2016. 
The team of the assessors vide letter dated 9'h December, 2016, has 
communicated to the MCI, which reads as follows:-
E 
"We reached the Dean's office. The Dean was present in his 
office. However, he left his chamber immediately and was not to 
be seen for next 15 minutes. Whereafter he returned to inform 
us his refusal to allow us to conduct the MCI assessment today 
eve~ after presenting MCI order to
conduct the assessment. He 
F 
stated that it was a holiday declared by their own university for 
Eid, which falls 5 days later. It was not national or State or local 
holiday. ·He also mentioned that there were no doctors in wards 
or OPD or Emergency as it was a holiday. When questioned 
G 
again, regarding the patients' services can also stop·on a holiday, 
he had no answer. 
He has no answer as to why the Dean and two or three possible 
officers were working on a holiday, if all the doctors were on a 
holiday. 
H
1066 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017) 11 S.C.R. 
A 
We then asked him to give his refusal in writing. It took two 
hours for the Dean to hand over the letter. In the meantime the 
assessors went on rounds of campus. There were no patients. 
There were no doctors in campus. Hostel rooms and wards, 
B 
c 
OPD had no patients or nurses to be seen. In all ICUs, there 
were no patients admitted. Casualty area and reception area 
there were no patients, in laboratory, no patients for giving the 
samples. Only IO to 12 cars were patient in the campus. No sign 
of a running hospital was seen in the entire hospital. Infrastructure 
looked highly inadequate. All beds were seen to be fresh. We, 
the assessors' team, wondered how an entire hospital service can 
take holiday as mentioned in the Dean's reply since a hospital 
should run on a 24x7 basis for an entire year . 
. 
The way, the Dean refused for the assessment quoting invalid 
D 
excuses shows and confirms the non-functioning of the Hospital 
as well as Medical College/classes which are self declared holidays 
from 08.12.2016 to 12.12.2016. The dates looked like tailored 
dates confirming with the assessment dates as add when the 
assessment occurred also the Jeter submitted to the MCI by the 
E 
College on 08.12.2016 mentions holidays of IO'h & ll'h December 
of Saturday and Sunday respectively and Monday 12 for Eid. No 
mention is found of 91h December as claimed by the Dean in his 
letter. 
F 
At the fag end of the process,
another letter was submitted to us 
with some of the key words changed and we were pressurized to 
include this and rep I.ace the first letter. So we are submitting both 
the letter for your perusal." 
5. On the basis of the assessors report, the MCI vide letter dated 
G 
26'h December, 2016, recommended to the Ministry as follows:-
"In view of the above, the college has failed to abide by the 
undertaking it had given to the Central Govt. that there are no 
deficiencies as per the directions passed by the Supreme Court 
H 
mandated Oversight Committee and communicated vide Ministry
SHRI VENKATESHWARA UNIVERSITY THR. ITS REGISTRAR 1067 
AND ANOTHER v. U.0.1. AND ANR. [DIPAK MISRA, CJI] 
. of Health & F.W. letter dated 12/09/2016 [para l(i)]. The A 
Executive Committee, after due deliberation and discussion, has 
decided that the college has failed to comply with the stipulation 
laid down by the Oversight Committee. Accordingly, the Executive 
Committee recommends that as per the directions passed by 
Oversight Committee and communicated vi de Ministry of Health 
B 
& F.W. letter dated 12/09/2016 [in para 2(b)], the college should 
be debarred from admitting students in the above course for a 
period of two academic years i.e. 2017-18 & 2018-19 as even 
after giving an undertaking that they have fulfilled the entire 
infrastructure for establishment- of new medical college at C 
Gajaroula, Dist Amroha, Uttar Pradesh by Shri Venkateshwara . 
University, Meerut (Trust name-Shri Bankey Bihari Educational 
& Welfare Trust) under Shri Venkateshwara University, Gajroula, 
· Amroha, the college was found to be grossly deficient. It has 
D 
also been decided by the Executive Committee that the Bank 
, Guarantee furnished by the college in pursuance of the directives 
passed by the Oversight Committee as well as GOI letter dated 
12/09/2016 is liable to be encashed." 
6. The Ministry granted a personal hearing to the Institution on 
E 
17'h January, 2017, by the Directorate General of Health Services. The 
Hearing Committee, after permitting the Institution to
file written 
submissions, eventually, submitted its report to the Ministry. The Ministry 
forwarded the report of the Hearing Committee to the Oversight 
Committee for guidance. The Oversight Committee vide letter dated 
F 
14'h May, 2017, conveyed the following views to the Ministry:-
"EC has not considered the assessment report of assessment 
carried out on ll'h·l2'h Nov. 2016. 
G 
As per the assessment report dated 11th - 12'h Nov. 2016, there is 
no deficiency in infrastructure, faculty /residents strength, clinical 
material and investigation workload_ that would warrant disapproval 
of the scheme. There are certain remarks such as : (i) Most of 
the faculty and resident doctors have joined in last one and a half H
\ 
1068 
SUPREME.COURT REPORTS 
[2017) 11 S.C.R. 
A 
months prior to inspection. It is not known or could not be verified 
whether those faculties were considered by MCI in the same 
year, where they were previously working or where these faculty 
were appointed with permanent address proof. 
B 
There are no remarks given by the College. However, it was· the 
responsibility of the assessment team to verify the above about 
the faculty. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
ii) Patients in the ward were admitted with very vague complaints 
which did not require admission like pain in abdomen, itching, cough, 
mild fever, joint pains, irritation in the eyes, low back pains. In 
some wards, both male and female patients were admitted in the 
same ward (like Psychiatry). In Paediatrics, patients above the 
age of 14 were admitted with vague/no complaint. 
The remarks about patients are not specific and are general in 
nature. 
iii) No patients were in labor. No LSCS. No Normal delivery on 
date of assessment. This is a subjective remark without MSR. 
iv) Only 1 major & 1 minor surgery on date of assessment. This 
is a subjective remark without MSR. 
v) It is reported in SAF that the College website does not show 
name of all the faculty members (only 1 name appears on website 
out of 5 present in Pharmacology). Names of all faculty (including 
Pharmacology) are shown on website (http://vimshospital.edu.in/ 
wp-content/uploads/2016112/Faculty-1O-Nov-2016.pdO." 
7. Thereafter, the Union of India passed an
order on 31'1 May, 
G 2017. As the order was an unreasoned one, this Court in Glocal Medical 
College and Super Specialty Hospital & Research Centre vs. Union 
of llldia & Others [Writ Petition (Civil) No.41 of2017] had given certain 
directions and the present matter was included. The direction given on 
l •1 August, 2017, by this Court reads as follows:-
H
SHRI VENKATESHW ARA UNIVERSITY THR. ITS REGISTRAR 1069 
AND ANOTHER v. U.0.1. AND ANR. [DIPAK MISRA, CJI] 
"In the above persuasive premise, the Central Government is 
A 
hereby ordered to consider afresh the materials on record 
pertaining to the issue of confirmation or otherwise of the Jetter of 
permission granted to the petitioner college/institutions. We make 
it clear that in undertaking this exercise, the Central Government 
would re-evaluate the recommendations/views of the MCI, 
B 
Hearing Committee, DGHS and the Oversight Committee, as 
available on records. It would alsoafford an opportunity of hearing 
to the petitioner colleges/institutions to the extent necessary. The 
process of hearing and final reasoned decision thereon, as ordered, c 
would be completed peremptorily within a period of 10 days from 
today. The parties would unfailingly co-operate in compliance of 
. this direction to meet the time frame fixed." 
8. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the Ministry granted hearing 
to the Institution on 3ro August, 2017 and on IO'h August, 2017, passed D 
• the following order:-
"The college informed that compliance verification was carried 
out by MCI on 11-12 November, 2016. As per SAF form the 
deficiency was 1.5% ·in faculty and 8.6% in residents. 
E 
The college had declared extended holiday due to Eid and 
informed MCI on 08.12.2016. But MCI conducted surprise 
inspection on 09.12.2016. The college did not allow inspection as 
only one compliance
inspection was warranted as per OC orders. 
F 
It is seen from assessors note that on thelrvisit too the college 
on 09 .12.2016, the campus wore a completely deserted look. There 
was no sign of a functional hospital. 
In the opinion of the Committee, MCI was not precluded from 
G 
conducting inspection subject to sufficient reason and justification. 
The Committee agrees with the decision of the Ministry conveyed 
by letter dated 31.05.2017 to debar the college for 2 years and 
also permit MCI to encash bank guarantee. 
H
1070 
A 
B 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017111 S.C.R. 
Accepting the recommendations of the Hearing Committee, 
the Ministry reiterates its earlier decision dated 31.05.2017 to debar 
the college from admitting students for a period of two years i.e. 
2017-18 and 2018-19 and also to authorize MCI to encash the 
Bank Guarantee of Rs.2 Crore." 
9. Criticizing the aforesaid order, it is submitted by Mr. Mukul 
Rohatgi and Mr. Harin P. Raval, learned senior counsel for the petitioners 
that the order passed by the Union of India is absolutely unjustified, 
inasmuch as the inspecting team of the MCI could not have conducted a 
c surprise inspection on 9'h December, 2016. However, there is a 
subsequent amendment to the Medical Council of India Regulations, 
which clearly states that the MCI shall ensure that such inspections are 
not carried out at least 2 days before and 2 days after important religious 
and festivals holidays declared by the Central/State Government. Learned 
D senior counsel would further submit that the controversy is squarely 
covered by the decision rendered by this Court on 30'h August, 2017, in 
Kanachur Islamic Education Trust (R) vs. Union of brdia and 
Another [Writ Petition (Civil) No.468 of2017]. 
E 
10. Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General 
supporting the order passed by the Union of India contended that the 
inspection report clearly spells out the deficiencies in the Institution and 
if the Letter of Permission is granted, it
would be travesty of justice. It is 
his further submission that the controversy in the instant case is remotely 
p 
not covered by the decision rendered in Kanachur Islamic Education 
Trust (R) (supra). Additionally, learned Additional Solicitor General would 
harp upon the fact that the entire exercise has been carried out for the 
academic session 2016-2017 and not for 2017-2018. 
11. To appreciate the controversy in issue, it is necessary to mention 
G that on the basis of the recommendation of the Oversight Committee, 
the Central Government had granted the Letter of Permission. The 
Oversight Committee had imposed certain conditions. One such condition 
was to furnish the bank guarantee amounting to Rs.2 crores and to remove 
certain deficiencies and file an affidavit of affirmation of removal of 
H
SHRI VENKATESHWARA UNIVERSITY THR. ITS REGISTRAR 1071 
AND ANOTHER v. U.0.I. AND ANR. [DIPAK MISRA, CJI] 
deficiencies that was meant for2016-2017. Though, Mr. Singh, has laid 
A 
immense press that the inspection was carried out for 2016-2017, we 
are not inclined to accept the same. We are disposed to think that the 
inspection was done for academic session 2017-2018 because we have 
been apprised in the course of hearing that the Institution had applied for · 
grant of renewal of permission for the academic session 2017-2018. 
B 
12. The thrust of the matter is whether the inspecting team could · 
have inspected on 91h December, 2016. It is worthy to note that the 
Medical Council of India with the previous sanction of the Central 
Government had amended the "Establishment of Medical College .· c 
Regulations 1999". The amended clause 8(3)(l)(d) reads as follows:-
"However, the office of the Council shall ensure that such 
inspections are not carried out at least 2 days before and 2 days 
after important religious and festival holidays declared by the 
Central/State Govt." 
13. In Ka11achur Islamic Educatio11 Trust (R) (supra), while 
dwel.Jing upon the same, this Court has held:-
D 
"The fact that the petitioner's college/institution is a minority 
institution and that a major festival for the said community was ·· E 
scheduled on 12.12.2016 and that the day previous thereto i.e. 
11.12.2016 was a Sunday, are facts which may not be wholly · 
irrelevant." 
14. Thereafter,
the Court has proceeded to state thus:-
F 
"The observation of the Hearing Committee that petitioner's 
college/institution has not explained the deficiency of faculty is 
belied by its representations and also the observations amongst 
others of the Oversight Committee. The conclusion that a few 
G 
residents might have been on leave on account of NEET (PG) 
examination but not all, also seems to be inferential in the face of 
exhaustive explanation provided by the petitioner's college/ 
institution. In this context, the observation of the Oversight 
Committee in its communication dated 14.5.2017 that eight colleges 
H
1072 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] JI S.C.R. 
A 
including the petitioner's college/institution had been assessed 
twice in quick succession for the same purpose though not 
authorized by it in its guidelines, deserves attention. The Hearing 
Committee seems to have ignored the explanation provided by 
B 
c 
D 
the Professor and Head of Department of Surgery, explaining the 
treatment given to the three patients named in clause xii (a) to (c) 
of the Inspection Report in concluding that, the petitioner's college/ 
institution had not responded thereto. Its deduction that there 
might have been more instances of multiple entries in the OPD 
patient statistics based on five such instances is also visibly 
presumptive. The striking feature of the observations of the Hearing 
Committee, on the basis of which the impugned decision ha_s been 
rendered, is the patent omission on its part to consider the relevant 
materials on record, as mandated by this Court by its order dated 
1.8.2017. 
The findings of the Hearing Committee, in our 
comprehension, thus stands vitiated by the non-consideration of 
the representations/ explanations of the petitioner's college/ 
institution, the documents supporting the same, the 
recommendations/views of the MCI, the observation of the earlier 
E 
Hearing Committee, DGHS and Oversight Committee, as available 
on records. The Central Government as well readily concurred 
with the observations of the Hearing Committee in passing the 
impugned
order, which per se, in our estimate, is unsustainable in 
the singular facts and circumstances of the case." 
F 
G 
15. On a careful reading of the aforesaid judgment, we do not 
think that the clause has been interpreted as not to allow any inspection 
on a Sunday, but the Court have said in the factual matrix of the said 
case that the Institution was a minority institution and a major festival 
for the said community was scheduled on J2•h December, 2016 and the 
day previous thereto i.e. ll'h December, 2016, was a Sunday and the 
said facts are not wholly irrelevant. The said analysis cannot be regarded 
as the construction of the clause. 
16. Having said that, we shall proceed to analyze what the clause 
H precisely conveys. On a careful reading of the same, it is quite clear
SHRI VENKATESHWARA UNIVERSITY THR. ITS REGISTRAR 1073 
AND ANOTHER v. U.O.I. AND ANR. [DIPAK MISRA, CJI] 
and unambiguous that the obligation of the MCI is to ensure that A 
inspections are not to be carried out at least 2 days before and 2 days 
after an important religious and festival holidays declared by the Central/ 
State Government. In the clause, the words which gain significance are 
"important religious and festival holidays". On 121h December, 2016, it 
was Milad-un-Nabi and it is the day of festival. The inspection was 
B 
done on 9'h December, 2016, which was a Friday. The amended clause 
of the notification state only covers 2 days before the festival declared 
as a holiday by the Central/State Government and 2 days thereafter. In 
the case at hand, the inspection team had gone for inspection on 9'h c 
December, 2016, and they were deprived to carry out the inspection. It 
was not covered by the concept of two days of moratorium. In such a 
·situation when the Institution does not allow the team of the MCI or the 
assessors of the MCI, it will be adding premium to deviancy. Conferment 
of this kind of privilege is absolutely unwarranted. Therefore, the D 
directions sought for grant of renewal of Letter of Permission for the 
academic session 2017-2018 is not acceptable. 
17. Though we have so held, yet we think it appropriate that the 
students who have been admitted in the Institution for the academic 
session 2016-2017, shall continue their studies. The MCI
shall send the 
E 
inspecting team to the Institution within a period of two months. After 
the report is filed, the MCI shall apprise the Institution with regard to the 
deficiencies and give a date for removal of the same so that the Institution 
would be in a position to do the needful. We may hasten to add that the 
inspection that will be carried out and the further follow up action shall 
be done for the academic session 2018-2019. 
F 
18. As we intend to appreciate the inspection report and the 
deficiencies and the action taken up thereon by the Institution, list the 
matter on 15'h November, 2017. The renewal application that was 
G 
submitted for the academic session 2017-2018 may be treated as the · 
application for the academic session 2018-2019. The bank guarantee 
which has been deposited shall not be encashed and be kept alive. 
Ankit Gyan 
Directions i~~l1ed.