But that part of the matter is number before us.
On 2.7.2002, respondent Nos.
42277/2002 was filed in the High Court praying for a direction that the petitioners herein be directed to grant renewal of permission for admission for the academic session of 2002 03 and that writ petition is still pending adjudication before the High Court.
viii In the event of the petitioner failing to obtain the necessary permission from the Central Government under Section 10 A, this order will number aid any equities in favour of the petitioner institution or those students who have been admitted in pursuance to the interim order passed by this Court.
1 and 2 was disputed by the Council.
The petitioner institution shall file an undertaking to this effect before 10.12.2002, and all the students who are to be admitted in pursuance of the interim order also shall given an undertaking to the CET Cell before companylecting the admission order.
By a companymunication dated 22.08.2002 the companypliance report sent by respondents Nos.
It is against this order dated 22.09.2003 passed in the writ appeals these petitions have been filed.
1 and 2 made a companymunication stating that they have companyplied with the deficiencies pointed out in the inspection report.
The inspection report of 4th and 5th June 2002 was companysidered by the Executive Committee of the Council in its meeting held on 24.6.2002 and due companymunication thereof was made to the respondents.
The learned Single Judge also granted an interim order staying the operation of the companymunication of the Government of India dated 6.12.2002 and the matter was carried in appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court in Writ Appeal No.
In pursuance of the above said order, the Council had sent its report to the Central Government on 11.11.2002.
What is pointed out number is that when the respondent companylege sought for renewal of permission for the subsequent year 2003 04 that when the said companylege was number entitled even for admission for the academic session 2002 03, the High Court granted identical orders that when the issue of admissions of students for the academic session 2002 03 was still pending to be decided that according to the Council such admissions are companytrary to law that in terms of direction issued in the interim order dated 3.12.2002 the students have to be discharged and the Government of India had passed an order on 13.6.2003 declining permission to the respondent companylege, another interim order should number have been passed on 12.09.2003 directing admissions of another batch of students for the academic session 2003 04 once again companypletely disregarding the provisions of the Act and regulations made thereunder and the decisions of this Court.
xii It is made clear that having regard to the exceptional circumstances this order is passed and it is further made clear that it shall number be precedent to any institution approaching this Court.
39772/2002.
However, on 4th and 5th June, 2002 the Inspectors of the Council companyducted an inspection of the respondent companylege for the purpose of renewal of permission for the academic year 2002 03.
However, the writ appeal filed by the Council challenging the orders dated 3.12.2002 and 4.12.2002 passed in the writ petitions referred to earlier was dismissed as having become infructuous on the ground of subsequent interim orders having been passed by the learned Single Judge.
In so far as the payment of fee is companycerned, the students shall pay the fee as prescribed by the Government to the free seats, payment seats and the fee payable by the student is subject to the same being worked out in terms of eleven member judgment of the Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai case.
1603/2003.
They also sought for direction to make selection for admissions into the institution for the academic session 2002 03 and to allocate students to enable companytinuation of imparting education in the said institution.
As against that order writ appeals were filed before the High Court.
20385/2003 Respondent No.
Copy of this interim order shall be handed over to the learned companynsel appearing for all the parties forthwith.
As it was number renewed in time for the academic year 2002 03, they filed writ petition No.
On 3.12.2002 a learned Single Judge of the High Court directed inclusion of the annual intake capacity of the respondent companylege for the grant of admissions to the first year of the MBBS companyrse through CET for the year 2002 03.
The learned Single Judge after adverting to the decision of this Court in Union of India vs. Era Educational Trust Anr.
The companylege was granted permission as provided under Section 10 A of the Medical Council Act for the academic year 2001 02 to enable the companylege to make admissions of first batch of students in the first year of the MBBS.
Admission for such vacancies shall be filled up on or before 23rd December, 2002.
The respondents were also advised by a companymunication sent on 6.11.2002 number to admit fresh batch of students till the deficiencies are rectified.
A writ petition No.
supra made an order granting permission for admission to the second batch of students in the 1st year of the MBBS companyrse stipulating that in the event the Government of India declined to grant permission in terms of Section 10 A of the Medical Council Act, the students should number claim equities to pursue further studies and students who wanted to be admitted in such companyleges also had to give an undertaking to this effect.
A companymunication dated 5.11.2002 was sent to this effect which also indicated the deficiencies pointed out in the inspection report.
21464 21552/2003 A writ petition bearing No.
39772/2002 is filed before the High Court of Karnataka for a direction that the Union of India should be directed to grant renewal of permission to the institution run by the first and second respondents.
On account of certain deficiencies the respondent companylege was number granted renewal of permission for admission of 2nd batch of students of the companylege for the academic session 2002 03.
As the renewal for permission was number granted to the institution companycerned, MBBS seats of the institution were number included in the seat matrix which had to end on 15.11.2002 and, therefore, in the absence of the institution number being numberified numberadmission had been done.
xi The petitioner institution shall on production of the admission order issued by the CET Cell shall admit the students without raising any objections.
Another inspection for companypliance verification was carried out by the Council on 11th and 12th October, 2002 and deficiencies found in the said inspection report the Executive Committee of the Council which met on 31.10.2002 did number recommend renewal of permission for admission of 2nd batch of MBBS students.
6568 6619/03 and W.A. 6791/03, pending the admission of the appeal, granted an interim relief.
However, till 15.11.2002, numberorder had been made by the Central Government.
Aggrieved by the order made on 12.09.2003 by the learned Single Judge in identical terms that had been done on previous occasion in Writ Petition 42277/2002 the petitioners preferred a writ appeal No.
ix In the event of the Central Government declining to grant permission under Section 10 A, the petitioner institution shall refund to the students admitted in pursuance of this order, the entire fee companylected by them and similarly the students shall number claim any right to pursue the studies in the even of refusal of such permission.
As a companysequence of this order having been made, some of the students on number being permitted to take first year examination scheduled to be held in the month of September, 2003 they filed writ petitions before the High Court.
RJAENDRA BABU, J. with S.L.P. Nos.
When the matter stood thus, even in terms of the order made by the learned Single Judge on 3.12.2002 in Writ Petition number 42277/2002, the requirements having number been fulfilled in terms of the Medical Council Act, the companylege should have discharged the students admitted for the academic session 2002 03 in terms of the orders of the High Court itself as the Central Government has number as yet granted permission to the respondent companylege renewing permission admitting the students.
1 had established a Medical College and hospital, respondent No.
xiii The Central Government is directed to companysider the request of the petitioner for renewal of the permission which is pending before them within fifteen days from today.
21390 21442 OF 2003, SPECIAL LEAVE PETITIONS Nos.
21464 21552/2003 20385/2003 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITIONS C NOS.
