# IQ CITY FOUNDATION & ANR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

- **Citation:** [2018] 2 S.C.R. 587
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2018-02-06
- **Bench:** Dipak Misra, Amitava Roy, A. M. Khanwilkar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/iq-city-foundation-anr-v-union-of-india-ors-32681
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

Medical Council Act, 1956 - s.10-A - Petitioner-College
sought renewal of permission for admission of 150 students in MBBS
course for the academic year 2017-2018 - Rejected by first
respondent vide order dtd. 31.05.2017 - Writ petition filed by
petitioner for quashing of the said order and for issuing a direction
to the said respondent to grant the permission sought by Petitioner
- In view of the fact that the order passed by the first respondent
was not reasoned, Supreme Court inter alia directed it to afford a
further opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter take
a decision - Petitioner-institution afforded an opportunity of
hearing - First respondent, considering the remarks of the Hearing
Committee reiterated its earlier decision dtd. 31.05.2017 not to renew
the permission to admit MBBS students for the academic year
2017-18 - Held: Hearing Committee, on verification of every aspect,
found that the deficiency of faculty members was 15.9 and the
deficiency of Resident Doctors was 25.88 and, accordingly, it did
not recommend for renewal - First respondent, in its turn, observed
that the deficiency found was not compatible with the MCI guidelines
- In such a situation, it is difficult to hold that there was any
perversity in the action of the authorities denying the renewal to
the institution - However, it is directed that the prayer for renewal
shall be considered for the year 2018-19 and any bank guarantee
that has been furnished shall be treated as deposit for the inspection
and consideration for the next year, i.e. 2018-19 - Education -
Constitution of India - Art.32.
Disposing of the writ petition, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The petitioner-institution was afforded an
opportunity of hearing by the Hearing Committee. The Central
 [2018] 2 S.C.R. 587
 587
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
588
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 2 S.C.R.
Government, considering the remarks of the Hearing Committee,
passed an order. The competent authority of the Central
Government, considering various aspects, had reiterated the
order. After the remand, the petitioner-institution filed certain
documents before the Hearing Committee.[Paras 9-11, 13][594D-E; 595-F-H]
1.2 The Hearing Committee, on verification of every aspect,
found that the deficiency of faculty members was 15.9 and the
deficiency of Resident Doctors was 25.88 and, accordingly, it did
not recommend for renewal. The Central Government, in its turn,
observed that the deficiency found by the MCI was not compatible
with the MCI guidelines. In such a situation, it is difficult to hold
that there was any perversity in the action of the authorities
denying the renewal to the institution. Though the decision of
the Central Government is approved, yet it is directed that the
prayer for renewal shall be considered for the year 2018-19 and
any bank guarantee that has been furnished shall be treated as
deposit for the inspection and consideration for the next year,
that is, 2018-19. [Para 15][596-E-H; 597-A-B]
Manohar Lal Sharma v. Medical Council of India and
others (2013) 10 SCC 60 : [2013] 9 SCR 325; Medical
Council of India v. Kalinga Institute of Medical
Sciences (KIMS) and others (2016) 11 SCC 530 : [2016]
4 SCR 403; Royal Medical Trust (Registered) and
another v. Union of India and another (2015) 10 SCC
19 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2013] 9 SCR 325
referred to
Para 5
[2016] 4 SCR 403
referred to
Para 5
(2015) 10 SCC 19
referred to
Para 5
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil)
No. 502 of 2017.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
Mukul Rohatgi, Ajit Kumar Sinha, Vikas Singh, Sr. Advs., Kunal
Vajani, Nikhil Rohatgi, Pranaya Goyal, Chiranjivi Sharma, Abhirath
Thakur, Vipin Kumar, R. K. Rathore, G. S. Makker, Gaurav Sharma,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
589
Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Prateek Bhatia, Dhawal Mohan, Advs. for the
appearing parties.

## Text

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
587
IQ CITY FOUNDATION & ANR.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 502 of 2017)
FEBRUARY 06, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, AMITAVA ROY AND
A. M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.]
Medical Council Act, 1956 - s.10-A - Petitioner-College
sought renewal of permission for admission of 150 students in MBBS
course for the academic year 2017-2018 - Rejected by first
respondent vide order dtd. 31.05.2017 - Writ petition filed by
petitioner for quashing of the said order and for issuing a direction
to the said respondent to grant the permission sought by Petitioner
- In view of the fact that the order passed by the first respondent
was not reasoned, Supreme Court inter alia directed it to afford a
further opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter take
a decision - Petitioner-institution afforded an opportunity of
hearing - First respondent, considering the remarks of the Hearing
Committee reiterated its earlier decision dtd. 31.05.2017 not to renew
the permission to admit MBBS students for the academic year
2017-18 - Held: Hearing Committee, on verification of every aspect,
found that the deficiency of faculty members was 15.9 and the
deficiency of Resident Doctors was 25.88 and, accordingly, it did
not recommend for renewal - First respondent, in its turn, observed
that the deficiency found was not compatible with the MCI guidelines
- In such a situation, it is difficult to hold that there was any
perversity in the action of the authorities denying the renewal to
the institution - However, it is directed that the prayer for renewal
shall be considered for the year 2018-19 and any bank guarantee
that has been furnished shall be treated as deposit for the inspection
and consideration for the next year, i.e. 2018-19 - Education -
Constitution of India - Art.32.
Disposing of the writ petition, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The petitioner-institution was afforded an
opportunity of hearing by the Hearing Committee. The Central
 [2018] 2 S.C.R. 587
 587
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
588
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 2 S.C.R.
Government, considering the remarks of the Hearing Committee,
passed an order. The competent authority of the Central
Government, considering various aspects, had reiterated the
order. After the remand, the petitioner-institution filed certain
documents before the Hearing Committee.[Paras 9-11, 13][594D-E; 595-F-H]
1.2 The Hearing Committee, on verification of every aspect,
found that the deficiency of faculty members was 15.9 and the
deficiency of Resident Doctors was 25.88 and, accordingly, it did
not recommend for renewal. The Central Government, in its turn,
observed that the deficiency found by the MCI was not compatible
with the MCI guidelines. In such a situation, it is difficult to hold
that there was any perversity in the action of the authorities
denying the renewal to the institution. Though the decision of
the Central Government is approved, yet it is directed that the
prayer for renewal shall be considered for the year 2018-19 and
any bank guarantee that has been furnished shall be treated as
deposit for the inspection and consideration for the next year,
that is, 2018-19. [Para 15][596-E-H; 597-A-B]
Manohar Lal Sharma v. Medical Council of India and
others (2013) 10 SCC 60 : [2013] 9 SCR 325; Medical
Council of India v. Kalinga Institute of Medical
Sciences (KIMS) and others (2016) 11 SCC 530 : [2016]
4 SCR 403; Royal Medical Trust (Registered) and
another v. Union of India and another (2015) 10 SCC
19 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2013] 9 SCR 325
referred to
Para 5
[2016] 4 SCR 403
referred to
Para 5
(2015) 10 SCC 19
referred to
Para 5
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil)
No. 502 of 2017.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
Mukul Rohatgi, Ajit Kumar Sinha, Vikas Singh, Sr. Advs., Kunal
Vajani, Nikhil Rohatgi, Pranaya Goyal, Chiranjivi Sharma, Abhirath
Thakur, Vipin Kumar, R. K. Rathore, G. S. Makker, Gaurav Sharma,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
589
Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Prateek Bhatia, Dhawal Mohan, Advs. for the
appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DIPAK MISRA, CJI 1. The present writ petition, as the
circumstances would have it, witnesses a second verdict. The first one
was disposed of by us on 1
st August, 2017. At that time, we had noted
the facts to the effect that the petitioners had prayed for issue of a writ
of certiorari for quashment of the order dated 31.05.2017 passed under
Section 10-A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (for brevity, 'the
Act") by the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, the 1
st
respondent herein, and further issue a direction to the said respondent to
grant permission to the petitioner-College for 4
th renewal for the academic
year 2017-2018 to facilitate admission of the 5
th batch (150 students)
MBBS Course.
2. The essential facts which have been noted in the earlier judgment
are that the Medical Council of India (MCI) had conducted an inspection
and granted the Letter of Permission (LOP) on 15.07.2013 for the
establishment of the new medical college at Burdwan, West Bengal
with an annual intake of 150 students with effect from the academic
year 2013-14. Vide letters dated 04.07.2014, 10.06.2015 and 15.12.2015,
renewals of permission for the 2
nd (1
st renewal), 3
rd (2
n renewal) and 4th
(3
rd renewal) batches of MBBS students at the petitioner-College for
the academic years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 respectively were
granted by the respondent No. 1. On 06.07.2016, the petitioner-College
submitted its scheme along with the requisite fees for the 4
th renewal for
the academic year 2017-18 which pertains to admission of the 5
th batch
of 150 students in MBBS course. On 09.07.2016, the 2
nd respondent
informed the College that the assessment for renewal of permission for
the academic year 2017-18 would be undertaken by the Assessors
appointed by it at any time after 15.07.2016 and the petitioners were
asked to fill in the Standard Inspection Form A, Form B and Declaration
Form for the academic year 2017-18 and keep them ready for scrutiny
at the time of assessment. There was also a direction for submission of
the soft copies of the said Forms. As averred, the petitioners duly
submitted a compact disc containing soft copies of Form A, Form B and
Declaration Form and upon receipt of the necessary documents, the 2
nd
respondent constituted a team of Assessors and directed them to carry
out the assessment inspection of the College. The inspection team, that
IQ CITY FOUNDATION & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
590
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 2 S.C.R.
is, the Assessors, conducted a surprise inspection of the College on
03.11.2016 and 04.11.2016. The Assessors pointed out certain deficiencies
to the College and noted the same in the assessment report dated
04.11.2016. It is put forth that in the Regular Inspection Report, the
shortfall in Teaching Faculty and Resident Doctors were only 4.5% and
3.50% respectively which were well within the prescribed limit. Two
other deficiencies that were pointed out, as asserted, were completely
remediable and were duly remedied by the College. On 22.12.2016, the
Executive Committee of the respondent No.2 considered the Assessment
Report of the Assessors and decided to recommend to the respondent
No.1 not to renew the permission to the College for the 4
th renewal for
the academic year 2017-18. It was also noted that the 1
st respondent,
by its letter dated 03.02.2017, communicated to the College the
recommendation dated 28.01.2017 of the respondent No. 2 for
disapproving the permission to the College for the 4
th renewal for the
academic year 2017-18 and called upon the College to submit a detailed
point-wise compliance with documentary evidence. The College was
further intimated about the hearing that was to be held on 09.02.2017
before the Hearing Committee. A team of representatives of the College
appeared before the Hearing Committee on the date fixed and submitted
the compliance report keeping in view the remarks and observations
made by the Assessors of the respondent No. 2. In the second week of
March, 2017, the petitioners received a copy of the order dated
01.03.2017 issued by the 1
st respondent recording the recommendations/
order passed by the Hearing Committee of the respondent No. 1 under
Section 10-A(4) of the Act. The recommendation of the Hearing
Committee was to the effect that the deficiencies pointed out by the 2
nd
respondent were not such to warrant disapproval at that stage. Despite
the aforesaid findings of the Hearing Committee, the 1
st respondent,
instead of taking a final decision, referred the matter back to the
respondent No.2 to review the same in the light of the recommendations/
findings of the Hearing Committee along with documents submitted by
the petitioners and to furnish its recommendation.
3. On the earlier occasion, it was asserted that the 2
nd respondent,
on 17.03.2017, constituted a team to carry out a Compliance Verification
Assessment of the College. The team of Assessors, instead of carrying
out a compliance verification, conducted a regular inspection on
21.03.2017 in a random manner and proceeded to make a different kind
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
591
of assessment instead of limiting to their scope of reviewing the
compliance of the remarks/observations of the Hearing Committee. At
this juncture, it was contended that though the Compliance Inspection
Report was submitted, yet the Assessors required the College to submit
a representation and, accordingly, the College submitted the necessary
representation to the respondent No. 2. The Assessors, as per the stand
of the petitioners, noted certain deficiencies in their Compliance
Verification. The Executive Committee of the respondent No. 2 held its
meeting on 28.04.2017 but the minutes of the meeting were not uploaded
on the official website of the respondent No. 2 until 29.05.2017 and
were not communicated to the petitioners.
4. On earlier occasion, it was submitted that the petitioner had
approached the 1
st respondent on 20.5.2017 and submitted a detailed
representation with regard to compliance verification of the deficiencies
found by the assessors as pointed by the Respondent No. 2. Despite the
same, the 1
st respondent, vide order dated 31.5.2017, accepted the
recommendation of the 2
nd respondent and rejected the scheme of
permission for the 4
th renewal (Admission of the 5
th batch of 150 students
in MBBS course) for the academic year 2017-2018. It was urged that
the order dated 31.5.2017 was communicated to the college on 30.6.2017.
That apart, it was highlighted that the entire approach of the MCI was
contradictory to the Act and the Establishment of Medical College
Regulations, 1999 (for short, 'the Regulations') and further when the
Central Government had sent back the matter to the MCI to have a
relook at certain aspects, it could not have proceeded for a fresh
compliance inspection.
5. The contentions raised by the petitioners were opposed by the
MCI. This Court, referring to the decisions in Manohar Lal Sharma v.
Medical Council of India and others1, Medical Council of India v.
Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS) and others2 and Royal
Medical Trust (Registered) and another v. Union of India and
another3 and thereafter referring to Section 10-A of the Act and the
Regulations, opined thus:-
"29. On a reading of Section 10-A of the Act, Rules and the
Regulations, as has been referred to in Manohar Lal Sharma
1 (2013) 10 SCC 60
2 (2016) 11 SCC 530
3 (2015) 10 SCC 19
IQ CITY FOUNDATION & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
592
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 2 S.C.R.
(supra), and the view expressed in Royal Medical Trust (supra),
it would be inapposite to restrict the power of the MCI by laying
down as an absolute principle that once the Central Government
sends back the matter to MCI for compliance verification and the
Assessors visit the College they shall only verify the mentioned
items and turn a Nelson's eye even if they perceive certain other
deficiencies. It would be playing possum. The direction of the
Central Government for compliance verification report should not
be construed as a limited remand as is understood within the
framework of Code of Civil Procedure or any other law. The
distinction between the principles of open remand and limited
remand, we are disposed to think, is not attracted. Be it clearly
stated, the said principle also does not flow from the authority in
Royal Medical Trust (supra). In this context, the objectivity of
the Hearing Committee and the role of the Central Government
assume great significance. The real compliant institutions should
not always be kept under the sword of Damocles. Stability can be
brought by affirmative role played by the Central Government.
And the stability and objectivity would be perceptible if reasons
are ascribed while expressing a view and absence of reasons
makes the decision sensitively susceptible."
6. After so holding, the Court took note of the fact that the order
passed by the Central Government is not a reasoned one and in that
backdrop, this Court directed:-
"It is obligatory on its part to ascribe reasons. For the said purpose,
we would like the Central Government to afford a further
opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and also take the assistance
of the newly constituted Oversight Committee as per the order
dated July 18, 2017 passed by the Constitution Bench in Writ
Petition (Civil) No. 408 of 2017 titled Amma Chandravati
Educational and Charitable Trust and others v. Union of India
and another and thereafter take a decision within two weeks.
Needless to say, the decision shall contain reasons. We repeat at
the cost of repetition that the decision must be an informed one."
7. To appreciate the controversy, we may first record the letter
dated 21.3.2017 before the order of remand. The said letter written by
the petitioner to the MCI reads thus:-
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
593
"In connection with the above subject I would like to submit the
following paragraph for your kind consideration.
1. That during the last MCI inspection held on 3
rd and 4
th Nov
2016 our Faculty & Resident deficiency was 2.18 and 3.38
respectively. However on 21.03.2017 surprise inspection and due
to their personal commitment they could not come by 11 AM and
could not appear before the assessors.
2. Secondly, the State NEET Post Graduate counseling and the
Diplomat in National Board (DNB) counseling in process, many
of the senior and Junior Residents and few faculty members had
gone to KOLKATA for their counseling hence were not able to
appear in the inspection conducted on 21.03.2017.
3. Thirdly most of these faculties and residents are working with
us since long time and kind of documentary proof for the same
can be submitted, but because of the counseling they were unable
to make it.
4. It will not be out of place to mention here that our faculties and
residents had gone to attend medical camps in suburban areas as
such they could not reach by 11 AM to appear before the assessors.
Hence their absence may kindly be considered to offset the faculty
and resident deficiency."
8. Another letter was issued on 10.4.2017. The relevant part of
the said communication reads thus:-
"(3) That for our 4
th renewal inspection we were inspected on 3
rd
& 4
th November 2016 & a subsequent compliance inspection was
conducted on 21
st March, 2017.
(4) That on 21
st March when the surprise compliance inspection
was conducted, few of our facility & residents were on deputation
for attending our regular Medical camps on the rural areas. In
view of the inspection these facilities & residents were called
back to the hospital & college but by the time they arrived the
time for signing the attendance sheet was over i.e. 11 a.m. They
were denied signing in the attendance sheet and were not
considered during the head count which lead to deficiency of
faculty and residents - 15.99% and 25.88% respectively, even
IQ CITY FOUNDATION & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
594
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 2 S.C.R.
though our deficiency was less than 5% for both categories in the
inspection held on 3
rd and 4
th November 2016.
(5) That on 22
nd March 2017 we also sent one representation
letter along with photograph of few of our medical camps which
were going on vide letter no IQMC/2016-17/09 dated 21/03/2017.
The photographs are once again enclosed.
(6) That we are an established running medical college and hospital
with more than thousand employees working having all the requisite
infrastructure, faculties and residents and clinical materials as per
the council norms."
And again:-
"Hence, it is requested that our faculty & resident deficiency on
the day of the inspection may kindly be considered sympathetically
and permission may be accorded to us to admit the 5
th batch of
150 students and continue our services in Medical Education &
Health Care Services."
9. As the facts would show, the petitioner-institution was afforded
an opportunity of hearing by the Hearing Committee which, thereafter,
recorded the following findings:-
"1. On detailed examination of the documents, the deficiency of
the faulty still persisting. Hence not acceptable.
2. The shortage of Residents is 25.88% (maximum acceptable is
5%).
3. It has been recorded in the Minutes of the MCI meeting that
the Assessor resorted to only random checking of OPDs in just
three Departments, namely TB & Respiratory, ENT and Psychiatry
Department and has arrived at a figure without counting the total
number of patients registered in all the Departments, which seems
unreasonable and inaccurate.
4. Student hostel: The college authorities are producing the
Chartered Architect Certificate on completion and occupancy of
the hostel (to be verified).
5. The Anatomy Department had the requisite number of mounted/
unmounted specimens on the date of inspection and is being treated
as complied with.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
595
Conclusion: The deficiency of faculty found by assessor was
15.9% and was accepted by the College. The reasons provided
by the college for this deficiency are not compatible with MCI
guidelines of acceptable leave. Also the deficiency of Residents
was 25.88%. Therefore, renewal is not recommended."
10. The Central Government, considering the remarks of the
Hearing Committee, passed an order which is to the following effect:-
"10. Now, therefore, in compliance with the above direction of
Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Ministry granted hearing to the college
on 22.08.2017. A Member of the newly constituted Oversight
Committee also attended the Hearing Committee meeting. The
Hearing Committee submitted its report to the Ministry with the
following conclusion:-
The deficiency of faculty by assessor was 15.9% and was
accepted by the College. The reasons provided by the College
for this deficiency are not compatible with MCI guidelines of
acceptable leave. Also the deficiency was 25.88%. Therefore,
renewal is not recommended.
 A copy of the Hearing Committee report containing their
observations is enclosed.
11. Accepting the recommendations of the Hearing Committee,
the Ministry reiterates its earlier decision dated 31.05.2017 not to
renew the permission to admit MBBS students at IQ City Medical
College, Burdwan for the academic year 2017-18."
11. Thus, it is demonstrable that the competent authority of the
Central Government, considering various aspects, had reiterated the order.
12. We have heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi and Mr. P.S. Patwalia,
learned senior counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha,
learned senior counsel for the 1
st respondent, and Mr. Vikas Singh, learned
senior counsel along with Mr. Gaurav Sharma, learned counsel for the
2
nd respondent, MCI.
13. We may note here with profit that after the remand, the
petitioner-institution filed certain documents before the Hearing
Committee on 22.8.2017.
IQ CITY FOUNDATION & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
596
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 2 S.C.R.
14. The petitioner-institution also filed salary slips of the teaching
faculty and salary slips of Senior Resident Doctors and Junior Resident
Doctors before the Hearing Committee. The said documents have also
been brought on record. Paragraph 14 of the letter dated 22.8.2017 by
the petitioner-institution to the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family
Welfare, Government of India reads as under:-
"It needs to be mentioned that our Teaching Hospital has received
accolades from a team of 7 International Doctors headed by Dr.
Partha Sadhu and Dr. Klas Erik Kaspersson of "SMILE" and
"INGA-International Foundation" who are carrying out a major
camp for corrective surgery of Cleft Lip/Cleft Palate in our Medical
College & Hospital from 16th August, 2017 to 24th August, 2017
under the name and style called "OPERATION SMILE". A total
of 87 corrective surgeries for Cleft Lip and Cleft Palate have
already been performed as of date in our Hospital during the said
period. The Operation Smile and INGA International Foundation
have till date conducted more than 100 such camps and performed
more than 29,000 surgeries, Pan India. The said "SMILE" and
"INGA- International Foundation" have issued a letter of
appreciation to our College and Hospital stating that it is rare to
find such outstanding "State-of-the-Art" Medical and
infrastructure facilities."
15. That apart, the details of OPD patients between 15.3.2017 to
29.3.2017 have also been filed before the Hearing Committee as well as
this Court. The grievance that has been vehemently agitated is that, had
the Hearing Committee scrutinized the documents and appreciated the
stand of the institution in proper perspective, the opinion of the Hearing
Committee would have been quite different and as a corollary, the view
of the Central Government would have been guided in an affirmative
way in favour of the institution. The aforesaid submission, on a first
blush, looks quite attractive but, on a keener scrutiny, pales into total
insignificance. We are disposed to think so inasmuch as the Hearing
Committee, on verification of every aspect, found that the deficiency of
faculty members was 15.9 and the deficiency of Resident Doctors was
25.88 and, accordingly, it did not recommend for renewal. The Central
Government, in its turn, observed that the deficiency found by the MCI
was not compatible with the MCI guidelines. In such a situation, it is
difficult to hold that there has been any perversity in the action of the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
597
authorities denying the renewal to the institution. Though we have given
the stamp of approval to the decision of the Central Government, yet we
are inclined to direct that the prayer for renewal shall be considered for
the year 2018-19 and any bank guarantee that has been furnished shall
be treated as deposit for the inspection and consideration for the next
year, that is, 2018-19. Be it clearly stated, our opinion is restricted to the
non-granting of renewal for the year 2017-18 and not an expression of
opinion with regard to the consideration of the prayer for 2018-19.
16. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of without any order
as to costs.
Divya Pandey
 Writ Petition disposed of.
IQ CITY FOUNDATION & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI]