The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of compliance verification and the need for a clear decision from the Central Government in the renewal of permission for MBBS admission.

P.S. Teji, J.

1. The present application bearing C.M. No. 10764 of 2015 has been filed in W.P. (C) No. 5941/2015 for the grant of stay of the impugned letter dated 07.06.2015 issued by the respondent No. 1/Union of India during the vacation.

2. Case of the petitioner is that vide letter dated 07.06.2015, the respondent No. 1 directed the petitioner No. 2/Hamdard Institute of Medical Sciences and Research not to admit any students in the MBBS course for the academic year 2015-2016. The petitioner No. 2 had already initiated the admission process in April for the 4th Batch of 100 MBBS students for the academic year 2015-16. The petitioner has already received 6000 applications and the process of admission has to be completed by 15.06.2015. The foundation of impugned letter is the recommendations of respondent No. 2/Medical Council of India which have been given contrary to the directions of respondent No. 1 vide letter dated 07.05.2015. Instead of undertaking compliance verification, the respondent No. 2 issued a letter dated 14.05.2015 wrongly reiterating the earlier recommendation to the Government of India not to renew the permission for admission. It is submitted that no deficiencies existed in the college of petitioner No. 2. The petitioners have prayed for stay of operation of letter dated 07.06.2015 passed by respondent No. 1; letter dated 14.05.2015 issued by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 1 recommending not to renew the permission; to direct the respondents to renew the permission before 15.06.2015 to enable the petitioner No. 2 to continue with the admission process and to permit the petitioner No. 2 to continue with the process of admission during the pendency of the writ petition.

3. The petitioner earlier filed a writ petition bearing W.P. (C) No. 5763/2015, in which the learned Single Judge passed the order dated 28.05.2015 which reads as under:

“The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order dated 14.05.2015 passed by the Medical Council of India (hereinafter ‘the MCI’).

According to the petitioner, the aforesaid letter is wholly without jurisdiction as the Central Government had not sought any recommendation from MCI. The MCI earlier sent its negative recommendation, not to grant approval, to the Central Government. According to the petitioner, this was considered by the Central Government and by a letter dated 07.05.2015, the Central Government had called upon MCI to proceed in the following terms:-

“An undertaking may be obtained from the college. Recommended for approval.”

It is contended that in these circumstances, the role of MCI was limited to following the Committee’s recommendation as indicated above.

The learned counsel for MCI disputes the same and states that MCI does not accept undertakings from private institutions and in the circumstances, the Committee’s recommendations are contrary to its policy as well as devoid of any statutory force. In addition, the learned counsel for MCI also states that in view of paras 3 and 4 of the aforesaid letter, the Central Government had asked MCI for compliance verification and to send revised recommendations after compliance verification.

In the aforesaid circumstances, the controversy in the present petition is narrowed down to the interpretation of the letter dated 07.05.2015 sent by the Central Government. In this view, it would be necessary for Central Government to unequivocally clarify its stand as to the import of the aforesaid letter, the Central Government would clarify whether it had called upon MCI to merely accept an undertaking or to send a revised recommendation.

It is also relevant to note that according to the MCI it had already conducted a compliance inspection on 12.02.2014 and 13.02.2014 and, therefore, no further verification was necessary. In the circumstances, the Central Government would also have to unequivocally clarify whether it desired the MCI to conduct a verification inspection after 07.05.2015 notwithstanding