JUDGMENT

G. Rohini, Chief Justice Whether an opportunity to rectify the defects/deficiencies specified by the Medical Council of India need be provided to the applicant under Section 10-A(3) and/or 10-A(4) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (for short `the Medical Council Act') in cases which fall within the ambit of the provisos (a) to (d) to Regulation 8(3)(1) of the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 (for short `the Regulations') is the issue that falls for consideration by us.

Reference to the Full Bench:

2. W.P.(C) No.5041/2015 titled Shree Chhatrapati Shivaji Education Society & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr. was filed by a Medical College whose request for grant of permission for third renewal for the Academic Year 2015-16 was rejected by the Central Government on the basis of the recommendation of the Medical Council of India by letter dated 11.05.2015 recommending not to renew the permission for the said College. The admitted facts were that the Medical College was inspected on 14th and 15th November, 2014 and on consideration of the deficiencies noted, MCI having decided to apply the proviso (b) to Regulation 8(3)(1) of the Establishment of the Medical College Regulations recommended to the Central Government by letter dated 22.12.2014 not to renew the permission for the Academic Year 2015-16. The Central Government while communicating the said decision of the MCI to the petitioner Medical College granted an opportunity of hearing in terms of the proviso to Section 10-A of the Medical Council Act. In the hearing, the petitioner reported compliance of the deficiencies pointed out by MCI and therefore the Central Government by letter dated 17.04.2015 asked the MCI to review the compliance reported by the petitioner College and furnish its recommendation. However, by letter dated 11.05.2015, the MCI reiterated its earlier recommendation not to renew the permission stating that in view of the proviso (b) to Regulation 8(3)(1) of the Regulations, there is no provision to grant any opportunity for rectification of substantial deficiencies found in the earlier inspection. Aggrieved by the same, the Medical College approached this Court by challenging the proviso (b) to Regulation 8(3)(1). The petitioner therein also prayed to set aside the recommendation of MCI dated 11.05.2015. The said writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench to which one of us (Chief Justice) is a member by order dated 28.05.2015 holding:

"27. The question which arises for consideration is whether the Proviso (b) to Regulation 8(3)(1) providing for no opportunity to rectify the defects/deficiencies mentioned therein to be given is inconsistent with Section 10A(3) providing for the MCI to specify the defects and giving an opportunity to the medical college to rectify the defects. In our opinion, no. The reasons for our opinion are:

A. Section 10A(3) enables (by use of the word `may') and does not mandate (by not using the word `shall') the MCI to, on receipt of scheme, obtain such other particulars as may be considered necessary by it for making its recommendation on the scheme. The Regulations provide for particulars and information required to be furnished in the scheme. If the scheme is not in accordance with the Regulations, there is nothing in Section 10A(3) which mandates the MCI to still make an attempt to enquire whether by seeking further particulars, the scheme can be in accordance with the Regulations. Discretion has been vested in the MCI to, upon not finding the scheme to be in accordance with the Regulations, make a recommendation for disapproval thereof or to, if so desires or considers, seek further particulars which may bring the scheme in accordance with the Regulations. No right is vested in the applicant to compel the MCI to make efforts to bring the scheme in accordance with the Regulations, in spite of the applicant having failed to do so.

B. Section 10A(3)(a) also requires the MCI to give only `reasonabl