The main legal point established in the judgment is the authority of the MCI to regulate and set minimum standards for medical education under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and the court's limited power of judicial review over decisions of academic bodies.

1. This writ petition was filed by the D.D. Medical College and D.D. Hospital, represented by its Chairman. This writ petition was filed to challenge an order of the respondent Medical Council of India (for short MCI), dated 19.06.2012 and further proceedings dated 30.6.2012 sent by e-mail and after setting aside these two orders, seeks for a consequential direction to grant second renewal of permission to the petitioner institution for starting the third batch of MBBS course.

2. When the writ petition came up on 04.07.2012, this court had ordered notice on admission and directed Mr.V.P.Raman, learned Standing Counsel for the MCI to get instructions from the respondent. Accordingly, a counter affidavit, dated 13.7.2012 sworn to by the Law Officer of the MCI was filed.

3. Heard the arguments of Mr.R.Yashod Vardhan, learned Senior counsel appearing for Mr.G.Sankaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.V.P.Raman, learned Standing Counsel for the MCI.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that D.D.Medical college and Educational Trust was started to establish a medical college and hospital. It is the minority institution. This status has been granted by the State Government. The college claimed to have 3500 bed facilities, 141 department and 1500 bed hospital for teaching purpose. As per the MCI norms, 21 departments are functioning in the college and hospital. The estimate of the project cost was Rs.6000 crores. Over the period, they will establish 141 departments. The Government of India had granted essentiality certificate on 29.08.2008. After due inspection, the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University gave a letter of consent of affiliation on 29.10.2008 for starting the first year MBBS course with an annual intake of 150 students subject to the grant of permission by the Government of India.

5. In the meanwhile, the MCI was superseded and Board of Governors was appointed by the Government of India. They gave a letter of permission on 12.07.2010 for starting the course from the academic year 2010-2011 under Section 10(A) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. Permission was granted initially for a period of one year which is liable for renewal on yearly basis on verification of achievement of annual target set out in the project report. The college had commenced the MBBS course with 150 students for the academic year 2010-2011. The college had also fulfilled all academic requirements. It was also granted provisional affiliation by the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University as per the proceedings, dated 25.8.2010. The college after the academic year 2010-2011 had applied for renewal of permission for the next academic year. But renewal was refused by the MCI for starting the second batch of course. The petitioner college had filed a writ petition being W.P.No.13052 of 2011 seeking to challenge the order dated 19.5.2011 and for a consequential direction to grant renewal of permission for the academic year 2011-2012 and for the grant of letter of permission to have an additional intake of 100 more students. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 8.8.2011 (since reported in (2011) 7 MLJ 956). This court on technical ground had set aside the order of refusal to renew the permission and had directed as follows :

"28.) In these circumstances, the impugned order is quashed. While quashing the impugned order, I am not inclined to issue directions to the respondents, which the petitioner has sought for. Since I have set aside the impugned order on the ground that the same was passed in violation of principles of natural justice, the matter is remanded back to the second respondent to consider and pass orders afresh, after affording opportunity to the petitioner. The second respondent is directed to hear the petitioner on the allegations relating to the inspection conducted on 15.3.2011 and 16.3.2011 and also on the fake faculty and also on other allegations, within a period of eight wee