The order of the 2nd respondent dated 10.09.2013, rejecting renewal of permission for the fourth batch of 100 MBBS students to the The order of the 2nd respondent dated 10.09.2013, rejecting renewal of permission for the fourth batch of 100 MBBS students to the 2nd petitioner-College for the academic year 2013-2014, is questioned in this Writ Petition as being arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the Regulations made thereunder.

Facts, to the extent relevant, are that the 3rd petitioner is the chairman of the 1st petitioner Society and the Director of the 2nd petitioner-college. The 1st petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It claims to be a charitable organisation whose aims and objects include spreading education among the backward classes in Srikakulam district - a predominantly agency area in the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is the petitioners’ case that the 2nd petitioner-college was established in furtherance of its objects of imparting quality medical education to the youth from the backward classes; more than 66% of all students in the 2nd petitioner-college are from the backward classes, and 76% are from the same region; the 2nd petitioner-college was established in the year 2010, and the first batch of MBBS students were admitted during the academic year 2010-2011; permission was granted by the Medical Council of India (“MCI” for short) after inspection and verification of compliance of various requirements; they spent a huge amount to establish the medical college, and are successfully running it; they applied for renewal of permission for the academic year 2011-2012; on renewal being refused, they filed W.P. No.20834 of 2011; this Court passed an interim order dated 18.08.2011 suspending the order of the M.C.I dated 30.06.2011, and directed the 3rd respondent to include the 2nd petitioner-college in the ongoing counselling being conducted by them; by its proceedings dated 23.06.2012 the 2nd respondent granted renewal of permission, for admission of the third batch of MBBS students, for the academic year 2012-2013; on their submitting an application, seeking renewal of permission for the fourth batch of 100 MBBS students for the academic year 2013-2014, the assessors of the 2nd respondent inspected the 2nd petitioner-college on 08th and 09th March, 2013; after examining the assessors report the 2nd respondent informed them, vide letter dated 22.04.2013, of eleven deficiencies and called upon them to show-cause why renewal of permission, for the fourth batch of 100 MBBS students, should not be refused; by their reply letter dated 11.05.2013, they informed the 2nd respondent that the alleged deficiencies, which were trivial in nature, had been complied with; as the deficiencies, after rectification, were less than 8%, they requested that further action be dropped; the 2nd respondent, thereafter, issued letter dated 21.06.2013 calling upon them to appear before it on 26.06.2013, and submit documentary proof; as no orders were passed on their representation, they filed W.P.No.21506 of 2013 and this Court, by order dated 05.08.2013, directed the Board of Governors to consider the matter afresh and, if considered necessary, accord an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners, and then take an appropriate reasoned decision in the matter; and on the matter being remitted back for its re-consideration the 2nd respondent, by its proceedings dated 10.09.2013, rejected renewal of permission, for admission of the fourth batch of 100 MBBS students for the academic year 2013-2014, citing three deficiencies of which two were originally referred to and the third was raised afresh.

The impugned order dated 10.09.2013 records that the Board of Governors had considered the petitioners’ representation and had referred the matter to the under-graduate committee to scrutinize the additional documents, submitted by the repre