1

                                                          REPORTABALE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.514 OF 2017

World College of Medical Sciences ….Petitioners  & Research and Hospital & Anr.

Versus  

Union of India and Anr.. …..Respondents

J U D G M E N T

A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.

1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition for issuance of a

writ  of  mandamus  or  any  other  appropriate  writ,  for

quashing the order passed by respondent No.1 dated 31st

May,  2017,  debarring  the  petitioner  medical  college  from

admitting students in the MBBS course for the academic

sessions  2017-18  and  2018-19  and  authorising  the

respondent No.2 Medical Council of India (for short “MCI”)

2

to encash the bank guarantee of Rs.2 crore offered by the

petitioners and further, to direct the respondents to grant

renewal of permission to the petitioner medical college for

the  academic  session  2017-18  and  permit  the  college  to

admit students for the current year.

2. One Amma Chandravati Educational and Charitable Trust,

New  Delhi  had  applied  to  respondent  No.1,  Ministry  of

Health  & Family  Welfare,  Government  of  India  (for  short

“MHFW”)  for permission to establish a medical college at

Jhajjar, Haryana in the name and style of ‘World College of

Medical  Sciences & Research,  Jhajjar’  from the academic

session  2016-17  onwards.  In  light  of  the  opinion  of  the

Oversight  Committee  (for  short  “OC”)  appointed  by  this

Court, the MHFW vide letter/order dated 20th August, 2016,

issued a Letter of Permission to the petitioners to establish

the  medical  college,  for  the  academic  session  2016-17,

subject  to  certain  conditions,  including  submission  of  a

bank guarantee of Rs.2 crore and inspection to be carried

out by the OC for verification of compliance.

3

3. Thereafter,  MCI  conducted  an  assessment  on  26th-27th

October,  2016  with  regard  to  verification  of  the  conditions

stipulated  in  the  Letter  of  Permission  issued  on  20th August,

2016 and after considering this assessment report, the Executive

Committee of  the MCI,  in its  meeting held on 22nd December,

2016,  noted  certain  deficiencies  in  the  petitioner  college.  The

MCI,  vide  letter  dated  26th December,  2016,  submitted  its

recommendation to the Central Government that the petitioner

college  should  be  debarred  from  admitting  students  for  two

academic sessions i.e.  2017-18 & 2018-19 and that  the bank

guarantee  furnished  by  the  petitioners  ought  to  be  encashed.

After receipt of the said recommendation, the Director General of

Health Services (for short  “DGHS”)  gave a personal hearing to

the  petitioners  on 17th January,  2017 and then submitted its

report to the Competent Authority. The relevant portion of the

report reads thus:

“12. Whereas the Ministry decided to grant a personal hearing to the College on 17.01.2017 by the DGHS. The Hearing Committee after considering the oral and written submission  of  the  College,  submitted  its  report  to  the Ministry. In its report,  the Hearing Committee remarked as under:

Srl. No.

Deficiencies reported by MCI Remarks of hearing  committee

i. Deficiency of faculty is 29.23% as detailed No satisfactory reply

4

in the report ii. Shortage of Residents is 28.26% as detailed

in the report.  No satisfactory reply

iii. Bed  Occupancy  is  34%  on  day  of assessment.  

No satisfactory reply

iv. There  was  NIL  Normal  Delivery  &  NIL Caesarean Section on day of  assessment. There was NIL woman in Labour Room.  

No satisfactory reply

v. ICUs:-  There  was  NIL  patient  in  ICCU  & MICU, only 1 in NICU/PICU and only 2 in SICU on day of assessment.

----

vi. Central  Library:  It  is  partially air-conditioned.  There  is  no  separation  of Students’  Reading  Room  (Outside)  & Students’ Reading room (Inside).

To  be  verified  in medical college

vii. Anatomy  department:  There  are  only  65 mounted specimens.

To  be  verified  in medical college”

4. The Competent Authority forwarded the said report to the

OC for guidance, which then conveyed its opinion to the MHFW

vide letter dated 14th May, 2017, as follows:  

“(i)Faculty:-  The  College  has  explained  the  grounds  on which  the  assessors  had  not  accepted  the  4  faculty members.  Faculty  deficiency  of  06.18%  is  within acceptable limits.

(11  on  leave  + 4  not  considered  being  late)  Which  is acceptable; hence there is no deficiency.  (ii)Residents:- The College has explained the grounds on which the assessors had not accepted the 6 residents. Resident  deficiency  is  08.69%  (3  on  leave+6  not considered being late) which is acceptable. Hence there is no deficiency.  (iii)Bed  Occupancy:-  The  College  has  explained  the grounds  which  are  acceptable  and  hence  there  is  no deficiency.  (iv)Deliveries:- This deficiency is subjective. No MSR.  (v)ICUs:- This deficiency is subjective. No MSR.  (vi)Central  Library:-  Explanation  of  the  College  is acceptable.

5

(vii)Anatomy department:- This deficiency is subjective. No MSR.  LOP Confirmed ”

5. Despite  the  aforesaid  opinion of  the  OC,  confirming that

there was no deficiency, respondent No.1 passed an order on 31st

May,  2017,  whereby it  debarred the  petitioner  medical  college

from admitting students for two academic sessions i.e. 2017-18

and 2018-19 and also authorised the MCI to encash the bank

guarantee offered by the petitioners.  

6. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed this writ petition on 3rd July,

2017  and  the  same  was  heard  along  with  connected  matters

involving  similar  issues,  being  Glocal  Medical  College  and

Super Speciality Hospital and Research Centre v Union of

India & Anr.1  This Court vide judgment and order dated 1st

August,  2017 issued directions to the Competent  Authority to

reconsider the matter afresh and to record reasons. The relevant

portion of the order reads as under:

“24. Having  regard  to  the  fact  that  the  Oversight Committee has been constituted by this Court and is also empowered to oversee all  statutory functions under the Act,  and  further  all  policy  decisions  of  the  MCI would require  its  approval,  its  recommendations,  to  state  the least, on the issue of establishment of a medical college, as in this case, can by no means be disregarded or left out  of  consideration.  Noticeably,  this  Court  did  also

1  2017 (8) SCALE 356

6

empower  the  Oversight Committee  to  issue  appropriate remedial  directions.  In  our  view,  in  the  overall perspective, the materials on record bearing on the claim of  the petitioner  institutions/colleges for  confirmation of the  conditional  letters  of  permission  granted  to  them require a fresh consideration to obviate the possibility of any injustice in the process.  

25.  In  the  above  persuasive  premise,  the  Central Government  is  hereby  ordered  to  consider  afresh  the materials on record pertaining to the issue of confirmation or  otherwise  of  the  letter  of  permission  granted  to  the petitioner colleges/institutions.  We make it clear  that in undertaking this exercise, the Central Government would re-evaluate  the  recommendations/views  of  the  MCI, Hearing Committee, DGHS and the Oversight Committee, as  available  on  records.  It  would  also  afford  an opportunity  of  hearing  to  the  petitioner colleges/institutions to the extent necessary. The process of  hearing  and  final  reasoned  decision  thereon,  as ordered, would be completed peremptorily within a period of  10  days  from today.  The  parties  would  unfailingly co-operate in compliance of this direction to meet the time frame fixed.”

In light  of  the  aforesaid  order,  the  petitioners  were  granted a

fresh hearing before respondent No.1 on 3rd August, 2017 during

which  the  petitioners  submitted  a  fresh  representation  to

respondent  No.1.  Despite  the  fresh  hearing,  respondent  No.1

issued an order dated 10th August, 2017, confirming its earlier

order and rejected the said representation. The relevant portion

of the order is enumerated hereunder:

“16. Now, in compliance with the above direction of Hon’ble Supreme  Court  dated  01.08.2017,  the  Ministry  granted hearing  to  the  college  on  03.08.2017.  The  Hearing Committee after considering the record and oral & written

7

submission of the college submitted its report to the Ministry. The findings of Hearing Committee are as under:

The  committee  noted  that  the  inspection  was conducted on 26th –  27th October,  2016. Diwali was on 29th October. The argument of the college that  the  inspection  was  too  close  to  a  major national festival cannot be disputed.  

As  per  regulations  MCI  should  not  conduct inspections  two  days  before  or  after  major festivals. In this case the head count on the first day  of  inspection  on  26.10.2016  was  3  days before Diwali.  

Further,  10  faculty  have  been  verified  by  the assessors but were not considered in head count since they came later than the appointed time of 11:00 AM. The college has submitted declaration form for the 27 faculty/residents who were not considered by MCI. The salary slips in respect of these  27  staffs  do  not  bear  details  of  bank account, PAN/PRAN etc.  

The college has submitted from MCI vendor that the  Biometric  Attendance  Machine  have  been installed. It suggests 140 faculty are available of which 112 were enrolled.  Since this  happened subsequently to the inspection, it does not have bearing on the extent of deficiency as on the day of inspection.  

The bed occupancy figure of 62% as claimed by the college is supported by the MRD data. The assessors have noted as only 34%.  

In  view  of  the  magnitude  of  the  deficiencies pointed  out  in  the  inspection  the  Committee agrees with the decision of the Ministry conveyed by letter dated 31.05.2017 to debar the college for 2 years and also permit MCI to encash bank guarantee.  

17. Accepting  the  recommendations  of  the  Hearing Committee,  the  Ministry  reiterates  its  earlier  decision dated  31.05.2017  to  debar  the  college  from  admitting

8

students  for  a  period  of  two  years  i.e.  2017-18  and 2018-19 and also to authorize MCI to encash the Bank Guarantee of Rs.2 Crores.”

7. The petitioners, aggrieved by the aforementioned decision,

have  filed  an  Interlocutory  Application  in  the  pending  writ

petition bearing I.A. No.79050 of 2017, praying for quashing the

orders passed by respondent No.1 dated 31st May, 2017 and 10th

August, 2017, which debarred the petitioner college for two years

and authorised respondent No.2 to encash the bank guarantee of

Rs.2 crore offered by the petitioners. The petitioners have also

prayed for further direction against the respondents to confirm

the LOP of the petitioner medical college for the year 2016-17

and grant renewal of permission to the petitioner medical college

for  the  academic  session  2017-18  and  allow  the  petitioner

medical college to admit 150 students in the MBBS course for

the  academic  session  2017-18 by  participating  in  the  current

year counselling process on the basis of conditional LOP. This

application has been heard along with the writ petition.  

8. The petitioners contend that the Competent Authority has

once again passed a mechanical order without considering the

relevant  record and completely  disregarded the  opinion of  the

OC, which was after due consideration of the explanation offered

9

by the petitioners. It is submitted that the inspection conducted

on 26th-27th October,  2016  was  too  close  to  a  major  national

festival. That fact is not in dispute as Diwali was on 29th October,

2016.  It  was  not  permissible  to  conduct  inspection  two  days

before or after any major festival. That stipulation is to obviate

the possibility of ascertaining the correct position regarding the

faculty, residents, bed occupancy and absence on account of the

festival. It is submitted that the inspecting team adopted a hyper

technical approach in ignoring the presence of staff/faculty who

came  in  later  than  the  appointed  time  of  11.00  a.m.  The

explanation offered by the petitioners had found favour with the

OC. Further,  the factum of  salary slips,  in respect of  27 staff

members, which did not bear details of bank account, PAN/PRAN

etc.,  was in the nature of  clerical  lapse and not  pertaining to

infrastructure and academic requirement. If the inspecting team

had  any  suspicion,  it  could  have  made  further  inquiries  to

reassure  itself  before  reckoning  that  fact  to  deny  grant  of

permission.  Significantly,  the  college  had  submitted  Biometric

Attendance  Machine  records  but  that  has  been  completely

disregarded  because  it  was  furnished  subsequent  to  the

inspection. The Competent Authority mechanically adopted the

10

same reasons given by the MCI, as on the earlier occasion, which

rendered the  statutory remedy  under Section 10A (4)  of  the

Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, meaningless. The statutory

remedy provided by the  enactment is  to  enable  the  college  to

produce material in rebuttal of a fact noticed by the MCI in its

negative recommendation. Similarly, the explanation offered by

the college regarding bed occupancy,  supported by MRD data,

has  been  disregarded  and  instead  the  noting  made  by  the

Assessing  Officer  has  been preferred.  It  is  submitted that  the

avowed  object  of  relegating  the  petitioner  college  before  the

Competent Authority, with direction to the Competent Authority

to reconsider the entire matter afresh and to record reasons, has

been  defeated  by  the  mechanical  approach  adopted  by  the

Competent Authority. No analysis has been done in reference to

the opinion recorded by the OC in its letter dated 14th May, 2017,

which had accepted the explanation offered by the petitioners.

The Competent Authority has not given any tangible reason as to

why the opinion of the OC was incorrect or unacceptable. It is

therefore submitted that the writ petition and the application be

allowed and appropriate directions be issued to the respondents.

11

9. The respondents, on the other hand, would contend that it

is not open to this Court to sit over the subjective satisfaction of

the inspecting body, which is an independent body consisting of

respectable persons from the field of  medicine. It is submitted

that no fault can be found with the decision of the Competent

Authority,  which  has  decided  the  matter  on  the  basis  of  the

recommendation made by the MCI. The impugned decision is a

well  considered  one  and  deals  with  all  the  relevant  matters

necessitating the action of debarring the petitioner college from

admitting students for  two academic sessions and authorising

MCI to encash the bank guarantee of Rs.2 crore offered by the

petitioners.  The  respondents  have  essentially  relied  on  the

assessment report founded on the information gathered during

the  inspection  conducted  on  26th-27th October,  2016.  It  is

submitted that the verification and head count was done on 26th

October, 2016, which was three days before Diwali, inasmuch as

Diwali was on 29th October, 2016. Accordingly, the head count

conducted  on  26th October,  2016  was  not  in  breach  of  the

statutory  provision.  Hence,  the  finding  of  the  assessors  could

neither be ignored nor disregarded on the basis of some specious

plea taken by the college. Moreso, because discrepancy was also

12

noticed in the salary slips in respect of almost 27 staff members,

raising  grave  suspicion.  It  is  submitted  that  even  the  finding

regarding bed occupancy noted in the assessment report cannot

be taken lightly,  merely because the petitioners are relying on

MRD data. The possibility of manipulating the MRD data cannot

be  ruled  out.  Further,  the  physical  verification  done  by  an

independent agency on the spot must be given more credence,

particularly  when  the  statutory  authority  such  as  MCI  and

Competent Authority have accepted the same. The respondents

contend that the writ petition is devoid of merits and ought to be

dismissed.  

10. Having  considered  the  rival  submissions,  we  are  in

agreement with the petitioners that the Competent Authority has

once again failed to consider the relevant matters in the spirit of

the  direction given by  this  Court  on 1st August,  2017.  It  has

mechanically  adverted  to  the  recommendation  of  the  Hearing

Committee, which, in turn, has reproduced the factual position

narrated in the assessment report in respect of  the inspection

conducted on 26th-27th October, 2016. The Competent Authority

has not  examined the matter  with respect to the specific  plea

13

taken by the petitioners which had found favour with the OC.

The OC in its recommendation dated 14th May, 2017 had noted

that the faculty deficiency was only 06.18% which was within the

acceptable norms. The OC had noted that the assessing team

completely glossed over the fact that some staff was on leave due

to the ensuing Diwali festival and that 4 staff members had come

late  after  the  scheduled  time.  The  explanation  offered  by  the

petitioners in that  behalf  found favour with the OC.  However,

neither the Hearing Committee nor the Competent Authority has

dealt with the factual matrix and in particular, the explanation

offered by the petitioners, including the fresh representation.  

11. Having  said  thus,  we  would  have  proceeded  to  issue

directions  to  the  respondents  to  allow  the  petitioner  medical

college to admit students in the MBBS course for the academic

session 2017-2018.  However, in the present case, we find that

the MCI, which is an expert body, on the day of assessment has

noticed deficiency of 29.23% of Faculty, 28.26% of Residents and

34%  of  Bed  Occupancy,  each  of  which  was  beyond  the

permissible limits. It has also taken into account the factum of

‘Nil Normal Delivery’ and ‘NIL Caesarean Section’ on the day of

14

the assessment.  Further, there was only 1 patient in NICU/PICU

and 2 in SICU on the day of assessment and none in ICCU and

MICU.  It has also noticed that the Central Library was partially

air-conditioned and there was no separation of Students’ Reading

Room (Outside) and Students’ Reading Room (Inside).  Further,

there  were  only  65  mounted  specimens  in  the  Anatomy

Department. Indeed, the OC in its letter dated 14th May, 2017

has  noted  that  the  explanation  submitted  by  the  college

regarding deficiencies of Faculty, Residents and Bed Occupancy

was acceptable and, therefore, within the permissible norms.  As

has  been  noticed  earlier,  the  Competent  Authority  in  the

impugned decision did not accept the explanation offered by the

petitioner college but, as aforesaid, no analysis is found in the

impugned decision as to why the same was rejected and, moreso,

no tangible reason is forthcoming as to why it chose to deviate

from the opinion expressed by the OC.  At the same time, we also

find that the OC has not dealt with the factum noticed by the

Competent Authority in the impugned decision that the salary

slips in respect of 27 staff members of the college did not bear

details of bank account, PAN, PRAN etc. That presupposes that

there  was  no  clear  identity  about  the  staff  employed  by  the

15

college to the extent of 27 persons which is quite significant and

raises grave suspicion. The communication sent by the OC also

does not explain as to why the Bed Occupancy figure of 62%, as

claimed  by  the  college,  should  be  accepted  as  against  the

physical verification done by the assessor on the given day which

found only 34% Bed Occupancy.  The OC has also not recorded

any reason as to why the abysmal level of occupancy and indoor

patients  in  ICCU/  MICU/PICU  and  SICU  was  irrelevant.

Absence of indoor patients was a reflection on the performance of

the  hospital  as  a  whole,  which  inevitably  would  deprive  the

students of the said college of proper experience and exposure.

The deficiencies noticed by the MCI were significant and beyond

the permissible limits and the Competent Authority has not dealt

with  the  relevant  material  including  the  fresh  representation

submitted by the petitioners.   

12. As  we  are  not  satisfied  with  the  manner  in  which  the

Competent Authority has handled the issue in spite of remitting

the matter for reconsideration and for recording reasons, we may

follow the course adopted in the case of  Shri Venkateshwara

University through its Registrar and Another Versus Union

16

of India and Another2, and Krishna Mohan Medical College

and Hospital & Anr. Versus Union of India and Another3.  In

the latter case, the Court observed thus:- “21.  No  endeavour  whatsoever,  in  our  comprehension, has been made by the respondents and that too in the face of  an unequivocal direction by this Court,  to fairly and consummately  examine  the  materials  on  record  in details before recording a final decision on the issue of confirmation  or  otherwise  of  the  LOP  granted  to  the petitioner college/institution as on 12.09.2016. True it is that  the  Regulations  do  provide  for  certain  norms  of infrastructure  to  be  complied  with  by  the  applicant college/institution  for  being  qualified  for  the  LOP depending on the stages involved. This however does not obviate  the  inalienable  necessity  of  affording  a reasonable  opportunity  of  hearing  to  the  person or  the college/institution  concerned  vis-à-vis  the  scheme  for establishment of a college before disapproving the same. The manner in which the respondents, in the individual facts  of  the  instant  case,  have  approached  the  issue, leads to the inevitable conclusion that the materials  on records do not support determinatively the allegation of deficiency  in  course  of  the  process  undertaken,  as alleged.  We are  thus of  the considered opinion  that in view of  the persistent defaults and shortcomings in the decision making process of the respondents, the petitioner college/institution  ought  not  to  be  penalised.  Having regard to the progression of events, the assertions made by the petitioners  in  the  representations countering  the deficiencies  alleged,  the  observations/views  expressed by the Oversight Committee in its  communication dated 14.05.2017  and  the  DGHS  in  the  hearing  held  on 17.01.2017  negate  the  findings  with  regard  to  the deficiencies as recorded by the assessors of the MCI in the inspections held.  Consequently, on an overall view of the  materials  available  on  record  and  balancing  all relevant aspects,  we are of  the considered opinion that the  conditional  LOP  granted  to  the  petitioner college/institution on 12.09.2016 for the academic year 2016-17 deserves to be confirmed.  We order accordingly.

2  Writ Petition (C) No. 445 of 2017, decided on 1st September, 2017. 3  Writ Petition (C) No. 448 of 2017, decided on 1st September, 2017.

17

However, as the Act and Regulations framed thereunder have been envisioned to attain the highest standards of medical education, we direct the Central Government/MCI to  cause  a  fresh  inspection  of  the  petitioner college/institution to be made in accordance therewith for the academic year 2018-19 and lay the report in respect thereof before this Court within a period of eight weeks herefrom.  A copy of the report, needless to state, would be  furnished  to  the  petitioner  college/institution  at  the earliest  so  as  to  enable  it  to  avail  its  remedies,  if  so advised, under the act and the Regulations.  The Central Government/MCI would not encash the bank guaranteed furnished  by  the  petitioner  college/institution.  For  the present,  the  impugned  order  dated  10.8.2017  stands modified to this extent only. The direction for a writ, order or  direction  to  the  respondents  to  permit  the  petitioner college/institution  to  admit  students  for  the  academic year 2017-18, in the facts of  the case, is declined. The Registry would list the writ petition and I.A. No. 73716 of 2017  immediately  after  the  expiry  of  period  of  eight weeks, as above mentioned.”

In  the  case  of  Shri  Venkateshwara  University  (supra),  this

Court observed thus:-

“17. Though we have so held, yet we think it appropriate that  the  students  who  have  been  admitted  in  the Institution  for  the  academic  session  2016-2017,  shall continue their studies. The MCI shall send the inspecting team to the Institution within a period of two months. After the report is  filed,  the MCI shall  apprise  the Institution with regard to the deficiencies and give a date for removal of the same so that the Institution would be in a position to  do  the  needful.  We  may  hasten  to  add  that  the inspection that will be carried out and the further follow up  action  shall  be  done  for  the  academic  session 2018-2019.  16  18.  As  we  intend  to  appreciate  the inspection  report  and  the  deficiencies  and  the  action taken up thereon by the Institution, list the matter on 15th November,  2017.  The  renewal  application  that  was submitted for the academic session 2017-2018 may be

18

treated  as  the  application  for  the  academic  session 2018-2019.  The  bank  guarantee  which  has  been deposited shall not be encashed and be kept alive.”

13. Be that as it may, we shall revert to the grievance of the

petitioners  that  inspection could  not  have  been conducted on

26th-27th October,  2016, as the said dates were too close to a

major national festival.  This argument deserves to be rejected,

bearing  in  mind  the  interpretation  of  Clause  8(3)(1)(d)  of  the

Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 in the case

of  Shri  Venkateshwara University (supra),  which  postulates

that the office of the Council shall ensure that such inspections

are  not  carried  out  at  least  2  days  before  and  2  days  after

important  religious  and  festival  holidays  declared  by  the

Central/State  Govt.   In the present case,  the head count was

carried out on the first day of inspection, on 26th October, 2016,

as noted in the assessment report. Diwali was on 29th October,

2016, and thus, the inspection on 26th October, 2016 in no way

offended Clause 8.  Further,  if  the argument of  the  petitioners

was  to  be  accepted,  it  would  result  in  a  situation  where  the

inspection report dated 26th-27th October, 2016 will have to be

discarded  as  a  whole.  As  the  feasibility  of  grant  of  LOP  for

medical college is essentially founded on such assessment report,

19

if that report is to be discarded then the petitioners cannot get

any  relief  whatsoever,  without  fresh  inspection.  It  is  not

necessary  for  us  to  dilate  either  on  this  aspect  or  any  other

contention raised by the petitioners as we are inclined to adopt

the course predicated in the aforementioned two recent decisions

of this Court.  

14. Accordingly,  we  deem  it  appropriate  to  direct  that  the

students already admitted in the petitioner medical  college for

the academic session 2016-2017 be permitted to continue their

studies.   However,  we  decline  to  issue  directions  for  grant  of

renewal of LOP for the academic session 2017-2018. We direct

MCI to send its Inspecting Team to the petitioner college within a

period of two months and inform the petitioner college about the

deficiencies if  any, with option to remove the same within the

time limit specified in that behalf.  The petitioner medical college

shall  report  its  compliance  and  communicate  the  removal  of

deficiency to MCI, whereafter it will be open to the MCI to verify

the position and then prepare its report to be submitted before

this Court.  Be it noted that the purpose of said inspection would

be to consider the renewal of LOP in favour of petitioner college

20

for  the  academic  session  2018-2019.  We  further  direct  the

respondents to treat the renewal application submitted by the

petitioner  college  for  the  academic  session  2017-18  for  the

academic session 2018-19. The bank guarantee furnished by the

petitioners shall not be encashed but the same be kept alive until

further orders.  The Registry shall  place the  matter  for  further

consideration after ten weeks.                      

   ……………………………….CJI.     (Dipak Misra)

………………………………….J.     (A.M. Khanwilkar)

.………………………………...J.      (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud)

New Delhi, Dated: September 5, 2017.