5] Insofar as prayer clause (a) is concerned, we note that this Court by order dated 2 May 2016 has already declined interim relief by way of stay upon the provisions contained in Section 6(2) of the Maharashtra Unaided Private Professional Educational Institution (Regulation of Admission and Fee) Act, 2015 (said Act) and Rules 3,7 and 9 made thereunder. There was no clarity on the part of the applicants as to whether admission process, which has already commenced, is being undertaken consistent with the provisions which have been challenged in the main petition. At one stage, it was urged that the Central Admission Process, may not be consistent with the provisions. At another stage, it was urged that admission process is not consistent with the observations made by this Court in order dated 2 May 2016. Mr. Aaney, learned senior advocate for the State, has submitted that the admission process, which has reached at an advanced stage is quite consistent with the provisions, which have been impugned in the petition. He submitted that since the interim relief has already been declined, there is no question of re-seeking the same, by seeking “ clarification”.