The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in academic matters and the expertise of the Medical Council of India in maintaining high standards of medical education.

G.S. Sistani, J.

1. By the present writ petition the petitioner seeks a direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the email dated 30.6.2012 whereby the petitioners’application for establishment of a college has been rejected by the respondent. The petitioner also prays for a writ of mandamus directing respondent Medical Council of India to forthwith grant letter of permission to petitioner no.1 college to admit students in the first year MBBS Course for the academic year 2012-2013 as per the criteria of the first batch.

2. Rule. With the consent of counsel for the parties present writ petition is set down for final hearing and disposal.

3. The necessary facts, to be noticed for disposal of the present petition, are that petitioner no.1 is a medical college and petitioner 2 is a trust. Petitioner no.2 made an application under Section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act (IMC) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for establishing a medical college for 150 MBBS admissions annually. Respondent, upon satisfaction, regarding fulfillment of all the conditions, granted permission under Section 10A of the Act to petitioner no.2 to establish petitioner no.1 college from the academic year 2009-2010. Pursuant to the permission granted by the Government of India by the communication dated 10.7.2009 petitioner no.1 college admitted 150 students in the first year of the MBBS Course. As per Regulation 8 of the Medical College of India College Regulations, 1999, permission to establish a college and admit students may be granted initially for a period of one year and be renewed on yearly basis subject to verification of achievements of annual targets. A college has to apply for renewal of permission six months prior to expiry of the last permission granted.

4. In February, 2010, petitioners applied for grant of renewal of permission. According to the petition, the first renewal compliance was made in April, 2010, and pursuant thereto the renewal was granted to the petitioners and displayed on the website of respondent MCI. Before the permission could be conveyed to the petitioners the MCI was superseded in May, 2010, with the passing of the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Act, 2010. Thereafter all the decisions were required to be taken by the Board of Governors itself under Section 10A of the Act and not by the Central Government. The renewal permission granted to the petitioner college was removed from the website and the petitioner was not granted renewal. By a letter dated 15.7.2010 the respondent, on the basis of an assessment report dated 21/22.6.2010 decided not to renew the permission of admission of the second batch of students for the academic year 20102011. By another letter dated 22.9.2010 respondent informed the petitioner no.1 that it had been decided not to renew the permission for admission of second batch of students for the academic year 2010-2011. This decision of the respondent of not renewing the permission for admission of the second batch of students for the academic year 2010-2011 was challenged by petitioner no.1 college before this Court by filing a writ petition, being W.P.(C) 5495/2010. The lis between the parties ended with an order dated 25.10.2010 passed in LPA 661/2010, which was disposed of by the consent of the parties. The students studying in the college in the second year MBBS course filed a petition, being SCA No.16600/2010, in the Gujarat High Court, which was disposed of by a judgment dated 26.8.2011 whereby the students were distributed in other colleges of the State.

5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the students filed Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court of India, which was dismissed on 12.9.2011, however, while dismissing the said Special Leave Petition the Apex Court permitted the petitioner no.1 college to comply with the requirements for the request of renewal for the fourth year. By the letter dated 7.12.2011, addressed to the respondent, the petitioners requ