Mobile View
Main Search Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 22 docs - [View All]
the Dentists Act, 1948
Section 10A in the Dentists Act, 1948
Article 14 in The Constitution Of India 1949
Medical Council Of India vs Sarang & Ors on 28 August, 2001
Article 226 in The Constitution Of India 1949
Citedby 1 docs
D D Medical College And D D Hospital vs The Secretary on 21 August, 2012
Madha Medical College And ... vs The Union Of India on 13 August, 2014
Sri Muthukumaran Educational ... vs The Secretary To Government on 13 August, 2014
Tagore Medical College And vs Union Of India on 13 August, 2014
Annapoorana Medical College & ... vs Union Of India on 13 August, 2014

View the actual judgment from court
User Queries
Madras High Court
Madha Dental College & Hospital vs The Union Of India on 22 September, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED:    22.09.2010

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN

W.P.No.19580 of 2010

Madha Dental College & Hospital,
rep. by its Chairman,
Dr.S.Peter,
Soosaiya Peter Educational Trust,
No.15, Vargheese Avenue,
Ashok Nagar, Chennai 600 083.					... Petitioner

vs.

1.	The Union of India,
	rep. by its Secretary to GOI,
	Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
	Department of Health (DE Section),
	Nirman Bhavan, 
	Moulana Azad Road,
	New Delhi  110 011.

2.	Dental Council of India, 
	rep. by its President,
	Aiwan-E-Ghalib Marg,
	Kotla Road,
	New Delhi 110 002.

3.	The Director of Medical Education,
	rep. by its Director,
	151, Periyar EVR Road,
	Kilpauk, 
	Chennai 600 010.


4.	Tamil Nadu Dr. MGR Medical University,
	rep. by its Vice Chancellor,
	No.69, Anna Salai, Guindy,
	Chennai 600 032.						... Respondents
	
		Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of declaration.

	For Petitioner	:	Mr.K.M.Vijayan,
					Senior Counsel
					M/s.K.M.Vijayan Associates

	For Respondents	:	Mr.J.Ravindran, for R1
					Assistant Solicitor General

					Mr.P.Chandrasekar, for R2


O R D E R 

By consent, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for disposal.

This writ petition is filed for declaring the recommendations of the 2nd respondent, in their Letter No.DE-3(266)-2010/A1805 dated 10.08.2010 addressed to the 1st respondent, pursuant to an inspection conducted on 02.08.2010 on the petitioner college as biased, malafide, arbitrary, discriminatory and unsustainable in law and consequently direct the 1st respondent to renew the permission for 3rd year BDS course and to allow admissions in fresh batch of students in BDS course for the academic year 2010-11.

2. The brief facts relating to this writ petition are as follows :

(i) The petitioner College is run by Soosaiya Peter Educational Trust, Chennai, which is a Christian Minority Trust. The Trust owns institutions such as Madha Engineering College, Madha Institute of Management Studies, Madha Institute of Computer Applications, Madha College of Nursing, Madha College of Physiotherapy, Madha College of Education, Madha Dental College & Hospital, Madha Teacher Training Institute and Madha Matriculation School, which are duly approved by Governments at Central and State as well as its affiliating bodies. The Government of India, vide its Letter No.V/12017/75/2006-DE dated 13.07.2007 gave formal permission of the Central Government under Section 10A(4) of the Dentists (Amendment) Act, 1993, for establishment of a new Dental College for the year 2007-2008, with an annual intake of 100 students in I BDS Degree Course from the academic year 2007-2008. The University vide its order Proc.No.Affln.I (2)/34144/2006 dated 10.08.2007 granted provisional Affiliation to the petitioner college for starting I BDS Degree course with an annual intake of 100 students from the academic year 2007-2008. The University conducted the first inspection of the college during February 2008 and the DCI conducted the first inspection during April 2008 for grant of 2nd year BDS affiliation. On 03.12.2008, the University vide its order Proc.No.Affln.IV (3)/9637/2008 granted continuance of the provisional affiliation for the academic year 2008-2009.

(ii) The Dental Council of India has inspected the petitioner's college on 06.04.2010 to verify the achievement of the annual target for renewal of Central Government permission for the 3rd year BDS course with 100 seats for the academic session 2010-2011. The DCI, vide its letter No.DE-3(266)-2010/A1363 dated 06.05.2010 directed the petitioner to make good the deficiencies pointed out and to furnish the compliance report.

(iii) The petitioner duly complied with all the defects and sent the compliance report to the Secretary DCI by their Letter No.MDCH/DCI/Compliance/756/10 dated 10.05.2010 and further on by their letter No.MDCH/DCI/Compliance/781/10 dated 11.06.2010. The petitioner requested the 2nd respondent to consider the compliance report favourably and pass appropriate orders recommending to the 1st respondent for renewal of permission for continuing the 3rd year and admission to the 1st year BDS course in the petitioner College. However, on the basis of the minutes of the DCI circulated in their official website, it is observed that the Executive Committee has recommended not to renew its permission for the 3rd year BDS Course and not to allow admissions in the 1st year BDS course for the academic session 2010-2011.

(iv) Pursuant thereto, the Executive Committee recommended to the Central Government not to renew its permission for the 3rd year BDS course and not to allow admissions in BDS course with 100 seats for the academic session 2010-2011, due to the following reasons:

Designation Required Available Deficiency Remarks Professor 6* 6 Nil No deficiency Reader 13 12 1 There is deficiency of one Reader in the Department of periodontics since Kalpana Santhosh shown as Reader is not accepted as she was not present on the day of inspection 40 MDS-12 BDS-28 Nil No deficiency * Including Principal MEDICAL Designation Required Available Deficiency Remarks Reader 9 9 Nil No deficiency Lecturer 22 22 Nil No deficiency INFRASTRUCTURE :

1. The College has an attachment with Government General Hospital, 12 kms from the College.

2. The clinical material needs to be improved in view of students joining.

3. The College needs to procure specialized equipments in different subjects.

(v) The EC of the 2nd respondent deliberately with an arbitral attitude had recommended not renewing permission on filthy grounds such as that the Reader Dr.Kalpana who went on maternity leave is not present and the distance of the Hospital is 12 kms from the College. The distance factor is very much in existence on the previous occasions also, when the very same DCI had considered, and approved and the petitioner College was allowed to take admissions of students. The distance is not a changing factor for this year alone. As per the DCI Regulations, the applicant should have its own and manage a 100 bedded General Hospital in the campus or is attached with Government Medical College or a Medical College recognized by the MCI or tied up with at least for 5 years with a Government General Hospital having a provision of at least 100 beds and located within a radius of 10km. The present tied up Hospital is situate in the radius of about 6 km which is very much well within norms stipulated by the DCI Regulations.

(vi) The 2nd respondent, in their website circulated their decision on the petitioner's compliance report in the form of minutes. It has been observed from the minutes that the petitioner's college was recommended for not renewing the permission for the academic session 2010-2011 and thus injury caused to the petitioner. Some of the Colleges which had not complied with deficiencies were permitted to admit students while discriminately overlooking the petitioner's college alone without any sustainable reason of non-compliance. At this stage, the petitioner approached this court for a declaration against the arbitral attitude of the 2nd respondent in W.P.No.12753 of 2010. This court, by its order dated 22.06.2010 has given the following directions:

"In view of the above submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and considering the plea of the petitioner that the compliance report submitted by them on 11.06.2010 to the 2nd respondent and also taking note of the schedule of admission for the Institution and the counselling date, this court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the urgency involved in the case of Medical admission, directs the 2nd respondent to consider the compliance report, take a decision and forward the recommendations to the 1st respondent within a period of one (1) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, on receipt of such report, the 1st respondent is directed to take a decision within a period of one (1) week. It is made clear that the parties to the proceedings shall strictly adhere to the time schedule in medical admission cases."

(vii) In order to comply with the directions of this court, the 2nd respondent has deliberately chosen the date declared as Holiday for the College, i.e. on 02.07.2010 on account of the petitioner's daughter's marriage, for the second inspection with an ulterior motive of not to recommend for renewal. If the petitioner's college is inspected in a working day, it will be evident that none of the deficiencies mentioned are factually in existence. It is only failure to exercise such unbiased inspection, on the basis of which the petitioner is facing the present grievance.

(viii) The cursory perusal of the Inspection Report dated 05.07.2010 as set out below, itself would speak that the intention of the 2nd respondent as biased, arbitrary and discriminatory with the petitioner's Institution :

DENTAL:

Designation Required Available Deficiency Remarks Professor 6* Nil 6 There is deficiency of 6 Professors since all professors were absent as the college was closed on the day of inspection.

Reader 13 Nil 13 There is deficiency of 13 Readers since all Readers were absent as the college was closed on the day of inspection Lecturer 40 3 37 There is deficiency of 37 Lecturers since all lecturers including Tutors were absent as the college was closed on the day of inspection.

MEDICAL :

Designation Required Available Deficiency Remarks Reader 9 Nil 9 There is deficiency of 9 Readers since all Readers were absent as the College was closed on the day of inspection Lecturer 22 Nil 22 There is deficiency of 22 Lecturers since all Lecturers were absent as the college was closed on the day of inspection.

INFRASTRUCURE :

1. The distance between the Dental College and attached Government General Hospital, is 12km, which is not accepted as per DCI norms.

2. The clinical material needs to be improved in view of students joining. All the departments were closed except department of Oral Surgery. The main register counter was closed to inspect patients OPD records. There was no register in the department of Oral Surgery to verify any patient records. So the clinical material could not be verified.

3. As the college was closed, specialized equipments in different subjects could not be verified.

(ix) The petitioner, at this stage, approached this court for the second time on the same issue for a declaration against the arbitral attitude of the 2nd respondent, in W.P.No.15709 of 2010. This court, in its order dated 28.07.2010 issued the following directions to respondents 1 and 2.

"Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the circumstances, the 2nd respondent is directed to conduct re-inspection and take a decision and forward the recommendations to the 1st respondent immediately preferably within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, thereafter, on receipt of such report, the 1st respondent is directed to take a decision within a period of one (1) week.

(x) The petitioner further sated that as per the directions of this court, the 2nd respondent conducted inspections for the third time on 02.08.2010, and submitted the inspection report dated 10.08.2010 as set out below.

DENTAL:

Designation Required Available Deficiency Remarks Professor 6* 6 1 No deficiency Reader 13 12 1 There is deficiency of one Reader in the Department of Oral & Maxitloecial Surgery, since Dr.V.Arumugam shown as Professor is not accepted as he was also present in the inspection of the proposed Asan Memorial Dental College & Hospital, Kancheepuram in the same academic session, i.e. 2010-2011.

Lecturer 40 MDS-12 BDS-28 Nil No deficiency.

Dr.Rajani Iyer shown as MDS Lecturer in Oral Surgery is not accepted as she was also present in the inspection of proposed Asan Memorial Dental College & Hospital & Hospital, Kancheepuram in the same academic session i.e., 2010-2011 MEDICAL :

Designation Required Available Deficiency Remarks Reader 9 9 Nil No deficiency Lecturer 22 19 3 There is deficiency of 3 Lecturers in the department of Pharmacology since the following staff does not have requisite qualification as per DCI norms and are M.Pharma :

(i) Mr.M.Nandagopal

(ii) Mr.P.Karthik

(iii) Mr.H.Mohanarangan INFRASTRUCTURE :

1. The distance between the dental college and attached Government General Hospital is 12km.

2. The average OPD of the Dental Institute stands about 100 to 110 patients per day which includes old and new cases. However, after going through stock register of consumables and non-consumable ledgers, it is difficult to assess actual OPD and patient treated records, as the registers have not been maintained properly.

3. The instruments and equipments are grossly inadequate as per DCI norms.

4. Concept of sterilization is inadequate in all the departments.

5. BARC norms are not followed in Radiology Department.

(xi) According to the petitioner, the fresh deficiency included in the third report is the deficiency of one Reader in the Department of Oral & Maxitloecial Surgery, since Dr.V.Arumugam shown as Professor is not accepted as he was also present in the inspection of proposed Asan Memorial Dental College & Hospital and Hospital, Kancheepuram in the same academic sessions, i.e. 2010-2011.

(xii) The petitioner further states that Dr.V.Arumugam is under the roll of the petitioner's college for the past three years and he is receiving the salary from the petitioner. No application for resignation was received from the concerned faculty and no relief was given to him for joining the proposed Dental College. In case, the concerned faculty appears and present in the inspections of both the colleges, the 2nd respondent has to initiate disciplinary proceedings as per the Dentists Act against the concerned faculty only. Instead, DCI punishes the petitioner who is not at fault and having no knowledge of the misconduct of the faculty, appearing in the inspections of two colleges simultaneously.

(xiii) The petitioner would also state that the other deficiency of 3 Lecturers, who are having M.Pharm qualifications, instead of M.B.B.S. is against the DCI Regulations. This is a new deficiency and after thought inclusion, incorporated in third Inspection Report, solely for the purpose of denying renewal to the petitioner's college. The alleged deficiency is not figured in both the 1st and 2nd Inspection Reports, despite the very same faculties are present in all the three inspections. Having no other efficacious alternative remedy, the petitioner is before this court.

3. The 2nd respondent Dental Council of India filed counter affidavit, wherein, it is stated as follows :

(i) The petitioner Dental College was established with the prior permission of the Central Government under Section 10-A of the Dentists (Amendment) Act, 1993 from the academic session 2007-2008 with 100 admissions. It was granted 1st year renewal permission for the academic session 2008-2009. Due to gross deficiencies noticed in the petitioner Dental College, no permission was granted to the petitioner Dental College for the academic session 2009-2010. In order to consider the case of the petitioner Dental college for renewal of Central Government permission for 3rd year BDS course for the academic session 2010-2011, the DCI deputed its statutory inspectors, namely, Dr.Ramakrishna Shenoi of Nagpur and Dr.Jyoti Undanwade of Mumbai to verify the achievement of the annual target in terms of infrastructural facilities including teaching faculty, clinical material, equipments, etc. The said DCI statutory Inspectors conducted the inspection of the petitioner Dental College on 06.04.2010 and submitted their Joint Inspection Report to the DCI.

(ii) The Executive committee of the DCI in its meeting held on 26.04.2010 considered the aforesaid Joint Inspection Reports of the DCI's statutory Inspectors, namely, Dr.Ramakrishna Shenoi of Nagpur and Dr.Jyoti Undanwade of Mumbai and after discussion and deliberation noticed deficiencies in the petitioner Dental College and also decided that the petitioner Dental College be requested to furnish the Compliance Report within 5 days in respect of the deficiencies noticed. The deficiencies that were so noticed by the Executive Committee of the DCI are reproduced below :

The college authorities be asked to make good the following deficiencies and furnish the Compliance Report within 5 days for 3rd year BDS course at Madha Dental College & Hospital, Chennai with 100 seats for the academic session 2010-2011 :-

1. The college has an attachment with Government General Hospital, 12 kms from the College.

2. There is deficiency of one Reader in the department of Oral Surgery since Dr.V.Arumugam shown as Professor is not accepted as he has not furnished the relieving order from the previous institute.

3. There is deficiency of one Reader in the Department of Periodontics since Kalpana Santhosh shown as Reader is not accepted as she was not present on the day of inspection.

4. There is deficiency of one Reader in the Department of Pharmacology.

5. There is deficiency of one Reader in the Department of Orthodontics since Dr.R.S.Senkutuvan shown as Prof. & Head is not accepted as he has not obtained NOC from DCI as per GOI letter No.V.12012/3/2009-DE dated 03.12.2009, informed to all colleges vide DCI letter No.DE-Comp/2009A-7959, dated 15.12.2009.

6. There is deficiency of one Reader in the Department of Pedodontics since Dr.R.Venkatasubramaniam is not accepted as he has not obtained NOC from DCI as per GOI letter No.V.12012/3/2009-DE dated 03.12.2009, informed to all colleges vide DCI letter No.DE-Comp/2009A-7959 dated 15.12.2009.

7. There is deficiency of one Reader in the department of Community Dentistry since T.Sriram is not accepted as he has not obtained NOC from DCI as per GOI letter No.V.12012/3/2009-DE dated 03.12.2009, informed to all colleges vide DCI letter No.DE-Comp/2009A-7959 dated 15.12.2009.

8. There is deficiency of one Reader in the department of Prosdhodontics since Dr.Pavan Kumar Bohra is not accepted as he has not obtained NOC from DCI as per GOI letter No.V.12012/3/2009-DE dated 03.12.2009, informed to all colleges vide DCI letter No.DE-Comp/2009A-7959 dated 15.12.2009.

9. The clinical material needs to be improved in view of students joining.

10. The college needs to procure specialized equipments in different subjects.

(iii) That the aforesaid deficiencies were communicated to the petitioner Dental College vide DCI's letter dated 06.05.2010 with the request to furnish the Compliance Report in respect thereof by 11.05.2010 positively. The petitioner Dental College vide its letter dated 11.05.2010 submitted the Compliance Report. The Executive Committee of the DCI in its meeting held on 15.05.2010 considered the Compliance Report dated 11.05.2010 from the petitioner Dental College and after discussion and deliberation decided not to renew its permission for 3rd year BDS course and not to allow admissions in BDS course at the petitioner Dental College with 100 seats for the academic session 2010-2011 due to deficiency in teaching faculty, clinical material and also the petitioner Dental College needs to procure specialized equipments in different subjects/Departments. Moreover, it has also been decided that the petitioner Dental College has an attachment with Government General Hospital which is at a distance of 12 kms from the College as against the prescribed distance of 10 kms as per Regulation No.2(h) of the DCI Regulations 2006. The deficiencies so noticed by the Executive Committee are reproduced below.

The Executive Committee recommends to the Central Government not to renew its permission for 3rd year BDS course and not to allow admissions in BDS course at Madha Dental College & Hospital, Chennai with 100 seats for the academic session 2010-2011, due to the following reasons :

DENTAL :

Designation Required Available Deficiency Remarks Professor 6* 6 Nil No deficiency Reader 13 12 1 There is deficiency of a Reader in the department Periodontics since Kalpana Santhosh shown as Reader is not accepted as she was not present on the date of inspection.

Lecturer 40 MDS-12 BDS-28 Nil No deficiency * Including Principal MEDICAL Designation Required Available Deficiency Remarks Reader 9 9 Nil No deficiency Lecturer 22 22 Nil No deficiency INFRASTRUCTURE :

1. The College has an attachment with Government General Hospital, 12 kms from the College.

2. The clinical material needs to be improved in view of students joining.

3. The college needs to procure specialized equipments in different subjects.

Accordingly, DCI vide its letter dated 19.05.2010 sent to the Central Government the aforesaid recommendations of the Executive Committee of the DCI for further necessary action in the matter.

(iv) Pursuant thereto, the petitioner Dental College filed a writ petition in W.P.No.12753 of 2010 before this court and this court vide its order dated 22.06.2010 disposed of the same with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the compliance report, take a decision and forward the recommendations to the 1st respondent within a period of one (1) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, on receipt of such report, the 1st respondent was directed to take a decision within a period of one (1) week. It was made clear that the parties to the proceedings shall strictly adhere to the time schedule in medical admission cases.

(v) In order to comply with the aforesaid direction passed by this court, the DCI deputed its statutory Inspector, Professor Dr.Arun Dodamani of Dhule to verify the Compliance Report/letter dated 11.06.2010 from the petitioner Dental College on the Joint Inspection Report of the DCI Inspectors Dr.Ramakrishna Shenoi of Nagpur and Dr.Jyoti Udarwade of Mumbai to verify the achievement of the annual target for renewal of Central Government permission for 3rd year BDS course at the petitioner's Dental College with 100 seats for academic session 2010-2011. The requisite Inspection was conducted on 02.07.2010 by Professor Dr.Arun Dodamani of Dhule, who submitted his report which was received in the office of the DCI on 05.07.2010.

(vi) Regarding the distance from the petitioner Dental College to its attached Government General Hospital is concerned, the DCI Inspector Dr.Arun Dodamani in his Inspection Report dated 02.07.2010, has inter alia observed as under :

"2. The College has attachment with Government General Hospital, Chromepet, 12 kms from the College.

Observation :

Dr.A.R.Lakshmanan, Sr.Lecturer, Dept. of Oral Surgery, accompanied us in our vehicle the meter of the vehicle was set to Zero in front of him and as per his guidance, we reached the Government General Hospital, Chromepet. The meter reading showed 12 kms and the same was noted and duly signed by Dr.Lakshmanan and the Vice-Principal Dr.Satish Kumar (who came at 12 pm). The Vice-Principal endorsed the same.

Annexure 1B reads as under :

"On the instruction by the Inspector (DCI), I accompanied him to the General Hospital (Govt.) in a taxi, the meter reading was started from the gate of the Dental College, vehicle started from 0 (zero) and we went to the General Hospital, the meter reading showed 12 kms (12). I accompanied the Inspector for inspection of the Hospital.

I, Dr.M.Satish Kumar (V.P.) of Madha Dental College came here and met the Inspector at 12.05 pm and accompanying him for the inspection of General Hospital and also, I have seen the meter reading which came to 12 km. "

(vii) The Executive Committee of DCI considered, by circulation on 05.07.2010, the above Inspection Report dated 02.07.2010 of the DCI Inspector, Dr.Dodamani of Dhule, pursuant to/in compliance with the order dated 22.06.2010 passed by this court in W.P.No.12753 of 2010 and decided as under :

The Executive Committee recommends to the Central Government not to renew its permission for 3rd year BDS course and not to allow admissions in BDS course at Madha Dental College & Hospital, Chennai with 100 seats for the academic session 2010-2011, due to the following reasons :

"Observations of the Council's Inspector :

The Council's Inspector reached the Dental College and visited the Principal's Office at 10.45am. As noted, the College was closed and the watchman informed that the College was closed on the eve of Chairman's daughter's marriage. The Council's Inspector insisted the watchman that he want to see the college. As he entered the college, he saw one Department opened (Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery). Further, inspection of the college was done, all the departments including clinical and non-clinical, except Oral Surgery was closed. But, the Registration counter was closed, so verification of clinical material, i.e. patients record could not be verified. "

DENTAL Designation Required Available Deficiency Remarks Professor 6* Nil 6 There is deficiency of 6 Professors since all professors were absent as the college was closed on the day of inspection Reader 13 Nil 13 There is deficiency of 13 Readers since all Readers were absent as the college was closed on the day of inspection.

Lecturer 40 3 37 There is deficiency of 37 Lecturers since all lecturers including Tutors were absent as the college was closed on the day of inspection.

* Including Principal MEDICAL Designation Required Available Deficiency Remarks Reader 9 Nil 9 There is deficiency of 9 Readers since all Readers were absent as the College was closed on the day of inspection.

Lecturer 22 Nil 22 There is deficiency of 22 Lecturers since all Lecturers were absent as the College was closed on the day of inspection.

INFRASTRUCTURE :

1. The distance between the dental college and attached Government General Hospital is 12 kms, which is not accepted as per DCI norms.

2. The clinical material needs to be improved in view of students joining. All the departments were closed except department of Oral Surgery. The main register counter was closed to inspect patients OPD records. There was no register in the department of Oral Surgery to verify any patient records. So, the clinical material could not be verified.

3. As the college was closed, specialised equipments in different subjects could not be verified.

Accordingly, DCI, vide its letter dated 06.07.2010 communicated to the Central Government of the aforesaid decision of the Executive Committee of the DCI for further necessary action in the matter.

(viii) The Central Government, in pursuance of the order dated 22.06.2010 passed by this court in W.P.No.12753 of 2010 and after taking into consideration the recommendations of the DCI contained in its letter dated 06.07.2010, declined its renewal permission for the 3rd year BDS course with an admission capacity of 100 students in the petitioner Dental College and, accordingly informed the petitioner Dental college, vide its letter dated 14.07.2010 and also directed it not to admit fresh batch of students in BDS Course at its Dental College for the academic session 2010-2011 with the stipulation that the admissions made in violation of this condition will be treated as irregular and action under Section 10-B of the Dentists (Amendment) Act, 1993 will be initiated.

(ix) The petitioner Dental College again filed Writ Petition in W.P.No.15709 of 2010 and this court by an order dated 28.07.2010 disposed of the same with a direction to the 2nd respondent to conduct re-inspection and take a decision and forward the recommendations to the 1st respondent immediately preferably within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and thereafter, on receipt of such report, the 1st respondent was directed to take a decision within a period of one week.

(x) In order to comply with the aforesaid direction of this court, the DCI appointed its statutory Inspectors, namely, Dr.Arun Dodamani of Dhule and Dr.Sharad Kamath of Bijapur, to verify the achievement of annual target for renewal of the Central Government permission for 3rd year BDS course at petitioner Dental College with 100 seats for the academic session 2010-2011. Accordingly, the DCI inspectors conducted the inspection of the petitioner Dental College on 03.08.2010 and submitted their report which was received in the office of the DCI on 04.08.2010.

(xi) The Executive Committee of the DCI considered by circulation, on 06.08.2010, the aforesaid Joint Inspection Report of the DCI's statutory Inspectors, namely, Dr.Arun Dodamani of Dhule and Dr.Sharad Kamath of Bijapur and decided to recommend to the Central Government not to renew its permission for the 3rd year BDS course and also not to allow admission in BDS course at the petitioner Dental College due to the following reasons :

DENTAL :

Designation Required Available Deficiency Remarks Professor 6* 6 Nil No deficiency Reader 13 12 1 There is deficiency of one Reader in the department of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery since Dr.N.V.Arumugam shown as Professor is not accepted as he was also present in the Inspection of Proposed Asan Memorial Dental College & Hospital, Kancheepuram in the same academic session i.e. 2010-2011.

Lecturer 40 MDS-12 BDS-28 Nil No deficiency Dr.Rajani Iyer shown as MDS Lecturer in Oral Surgery is not accepted as she was also present in the Inspection of Proposed Asan Memorial Dental College & Hospital, Kancheepuram in the same academic session i.e. 2010-2011.

* Including Principal MEDICAL :

Designation Required Available Deficiency Remarks Reader 9 9 Nil No deficiency Lecturer 22 19 3 There is deficiency of 3 Lecturers in the department of Pharmacology since the following staff does not have requisite qualification as per DCI norms and are M.Pharma:

(i) Mr.M.Nandagopal

(ii) Mr.P.Karthik

(iii) Mr.H.Mohanarangan INFRASTRUCTURE :

1. The distance between dental college and attached Government General Hospital is 12 kms.

2. The average OPD of the dental institute stands about 100 to 110 patients per day which includes old and new cases. However, after going through stock register of consumable and non-consumable ledgers, it is difficult to assess actual OPD and patient treated records as the registers have not been maintained properly.

3. The instruments and equipments are grossly inadequate as per DCI norms.

4. Concept of sterilization is inadequate in all the departments.

5. BARC norms are not followed in Radiology department.

Accordingly, the DCI vide its letter dated 10.08.2010 communicated to the Central Government the aforesaid recommendations of the Executive Committee of the DCI for further necessary action in the matter and based on the said recommendations of the DCI, the first respondent has passed the impugned communication dated 14.07.2010.

4. Mr.K.M.Vijayan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the petitioner college had initially obtained approval by the order of the first respondent herein dated 13.07.2007 under Section 10A (4) of the Dentists Act,1993 and the said permission was given under the regulations for establishment of New Dental Colleges' Regulation 1993 and the petitioner college was also given renewal of the said permission for the academic year 2008-2009 on 08.07.2009 both for second year students who joined the petitioner college during 2007-2008 and for fresh admission for the academic year 2008-2009. He would also contend that one of the deficiencies pointed out by the respondents was that absence shown with regard to the post of Reader on the date of inspection was construed as deficiency and even though the said absence was justifiably explained on the ground of maternity leave of the individual the authority ignored the same and refused to grant permission. He would further contend that the location of the college and the attached hospital is within the radius of 10 kms as prescribed under the rule and the same is vouched by the grant of approval for the first year renewal for second year and since the issue relating to the location of the college and hospital is not variable it is redundant to harp upon that issue during every renewal. His last contention is that when no deficiency was recorded in the earlier inspection reports, in the impugned report it is recorded that there is a deficiency of 3 lecturers out of 22 medical faculties, which is not correct. The learned Senior Counsel, in support of his case, has relied on the following :

(i) a decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1987 (Supp) SCC 543 in the case of Vellore Educational Trust vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others "10. The impugned order made by Respondent 1 refusing to grant permission solely on the ground of policy of the government, is in our considered opinion not at all tenable as we have stated hereinbefore that such permission has already been accorded to establish private engineering college to Nagarjuna Education Society on November 15, 1985. Moreover the application for permission was filed long before the alleged policy in question was adopted by Respondent 1."

(ii) another decision of the Supreme Court reported in (1996) 8 SCC 330 in the case of Al-Karim Educational Trust and another vs. State of Bihar and others "12. In the totality of the circumstances disclosed in the case and having regard to the fact that at each stage new deficiencies are being pointed out, the latest being the report dated 28-6-1995 (explained by the subsequent affidavit of the appellants dated 4-9-1995), we are satisfied beyond any manner of doubt, that the deficiencies have been substantially complied with and minor deficiencies pointed out in the last mentioned report of 28-6-1995 are not such as to permit withholding of the affiliation to which the appellants Institution is entitled. From the manner in which the deficiencies have been pointed out from time to time, each time the old deficiencies are shown to have been removed, new deficiencies are shown, gives the impression that the affiliation is unnecessarily delayed. For the removal of the minor deficiencies pointed out in the report of 28-6-1995, a compliance affidavit dated 4-9-1995 is filed. Once the Institution feels secure on the question of affiliation, we have no doubt that these minor deficiencies, if they exist, shall be taken care of by those in charge of the Institution. For taking such further steps, the grant of affiliation need not wait. We make this position clear. The steps for the grant of affiliation to the appellants Institution may now be expedited and we direct the respondents to issue the necessary orders without loss of time. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs."

(iii) yet another decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2001) 9 SCC 465 in the case of Anjuman-E-Islam vs. State of Karnataka and another "3. Heard, learned counsel appearing on either side. Though we find that the writ petition filed in Writ Petition No. 8719 of 1991 was for seeking grant of affiliation for academic year 1991-92 and the relief was also granted in the teeth of such prayer, the learned Single Judge who dealt with the subsequent writ petition filed in Writ Petition No. 27443 of 1991 took into account the fact that for the period for which originally the affiliation was sought for, namely 1980-81 other institutions and applicants were granted with such affiliation and the discrimination meted out to the appellant alone constituted colourable exercise of power and therefore directed to consider the claim in the context of those facts. The learned Judge, at the same time, refrained from recording any opinion on the claim based on the minority nature of the institution. Though we cannot countenance the claim of the appellant that being a minority institution the general policy decision of the Government placing an embargo on the opening of new institutions cannot stand in the way of the appellants application being granted, from the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, taken note of by the learned Judge while passing the order dated 9-4-1992, which has not been challenged by any appeal, it is implicit that the claim of the appellant has to be considered for grant of affiliation keeping in view the state of affairs which prevailed during academic years 1980-82 when similar applications were granted for other institutions though the actual grant had to be prospectively for the academic year subsequent to the date of grant and not retrospectively for the earlier years also. The fact that the applicant has been agitating the matter all along through proceedings before courts cannot be lost sight of in this regard. The decision of this Court reported in Vellore Educational Trust v. State of A.P. also lends support to such consideration of their claim."

(iv) another Supreme Court decision reported in (2010) 1 SCC 639 in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Committee of Management, Mata Tapeshwari Saraswati Vidya Mandir and others "25. Since most of the junior high schools had subsequently been upgraded and granted recognition to conduct higher classes from Classes 9 to 12 and by virtue of the 1921 Act were disentitled to receive aid at the junior high school level, the State Government by inserting Section 13-A in the 1978 Act sought to protect their interests by continuing the application of the 1978 Act to those institutions which had been upgraded, but were already receiving grant-in-aid for the junior high school section. It is by virtue of the amended provisions of Section 13-A that a class within a class was being sought to be created in perpetuity. The application of the 1978 Act only to educational institutions which received grant-in-aid prior to 30-6-1984, has, in our view, been rightly held to be arbitrary by the High Court. Such provision is in violation of the equality clause enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.

26. If it was the intention of the State Government to extend the benefit of the grant-in-aid scheme to 1000 unaided permanently recognised (A class) junior high schools by its advertisement dated 9-9-2006, then it would not be fair, as has been rightly held by the High Court, to exclude such unaided institutions which besides imparting education at the junior high school level were also imparting education, either at the primary or the higher secondary level, from the grant-in-aid scheme, inasmuch as, they too continued to have junior high schools imparting education for Classes 6 to 8."

5. On the other hand, Mr.P.Chandrasekar, learned counsel for the second respondent would submit that pursuant to the order passed by this Court dated 22.06.2010, the Dental Council of India deputed their inspectors to inspect the petitioner college and the said inspectors inspected the college on 02.07.2010 and submitted their report; the Council, in its letter dated 06.07.2010, has recommended to the Central Government not to renew its permission for 3rd year BDS course and not to allow admissions in BDS course at the petitioner college with 100 seats for the academic year 2010-2011 due to certain deficiencies relating to teaching faculty and infrastructural facilities and therefore the Central Government has accepted the recommendations of the Council and the petitioner college was directed not to admit fresh batch of students in BDS course at their college for the year academic year 2010-2011 and hence the action of the authorities cannot be found fault with. The learned counsel has relied on the following :

(i) a decision of the Supreme Court reported in (1984) 1 SCC 307 in the case of Krishna Priya Ganguly and others vs. University of Lucknow and others, wherein, it is held thus :

"A consistent test should be applied to all candidates desiring admission. The Supreme Court will not interfere in the absence of plea of prejudice or bias which would be for the candidates to establish.

The High Court under Article 226 cannot ignore the rules framed by the Admission Committee; nor can it devise its own criterion for admission. It is a matter for decision of the academic body. If the academic body makes the marks obtained in M.B.B.S examination the criterion, admission has to be made by such criterion. Where the academic body applies the rules in a bona fide manner to all the candidates equally, the High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the internal working of the academic institution. The High Court can neither relax or rewrite the rules, nor grant admission to a person who is appreciably below the required merit on ground of his having a diploma. A mere diploma cannot override the consideration regarding the merit as disclosed in the low aggregate obtained by him in the last M.B.B.S. Examination. If the college authorities went by the pure test of merit, the diploma could not be a good substitute for admitting the lowest and the last candidate in the list."

(ii) another decision of the Supreme Court reported in (1986) SCC (2) 667 in the case of A.P.Christians Medical Educational Society vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and another, wherein, it is held as under:

"The Court cannot issue direction to the University to protect the interests of the students who had been admitted to the medical college as that would be in clear transgression of the provisions of the University Act and the regulations of the University. The Court cannot by its fiat direct the University to disobey the statute to which it owes its existence and the regulations made by the University itself. That would be destructive of the rule of law. It is not possible to treat what the University did in the case of the Daru-Salam Medical College as a precedent in the present case to issue the direction sought for."

(iii) yet another decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1998 (6) SCC 131 in the case of Medical Council of India vs. State of Karnataka and others "28. In the colleges in the State of Karnataka, the Medical Council prescribed the number of admissions that these colleges could take annually on the basis of these regulations. Without permission of the Medical Council, the number of admissions could not be more than that prescribed at the time of granting recognition to the college. However, it appears that in violation of the provisions of the Medical Council Act, the universities and the State Government have been allowing increase in admission intake in the medical colleges in the State in total disregard of the regulations and rather, in violation thereof. These medical colleges cannot admit students over and above the intake fixed by the Medical Council. These colleges have acted illegally in admitting more students than prescribed. The universities and the State Government had no authority to allow increase in the number of admissions in the medical colleges in the State. When regulations prescribed that the number of teaching beds will have to be in the ratio of 7 beds per student admitted, any increase in the number of admissions will have corresponding increase in the teaching beds in the attached hospital. These regulations have been overlooked by the universities and the State Government in allowing admissions over and above that fixed by the Medical Council. The respondents have not produced any document to show that increase in admission capacity to medical colleges over that fixed by the Medical Council has any relation to the existence of relevant infrastructure in their respective colleges and that there is also corresponding increase in the number of beds for students in the attached hospitals. Standards have been laid by the Medical Council, an expert body, for the purpose of imparting proper medical education and for maintaining uniform standards of medical education throughout the country. Seats in medical colleges cannot be increased indiscriminately without regard to proper infrastructure as per the regulations of the Medical Council.

29. A medical student requires gruelling study and that can be done only if proper facilities are available in a medical college and the hospital attached to it has to be well equipped and the teaching faculty and doctors have to be competent enough that when a medical student comes out, he is perfect in the science of treatment of human beings and is not found wanting in any way. The country does not want half-baked medical professionals coming out of medical colleges when they did not have full facilities of teaching and were not exposed to the patients and their ailments during the course of their study. The Medical Council, in all fairness, does not wish to invalidate the admissions made in excess of that fixed by it and does not wish to take any action of withdrawing recognition of the medical colleges violating the regulation. Henceforth, however, these medical colleges must restrict the number of admissions fixed by the Medical Council. After the insertion of Sections 10-A, 10-B and 10-C in the Medical Council Act, the Medical Council has framed regulations with the previous approval of the Central Government which were published in the Gazette of India dated 29-9-1993 (though the notification is dated 20-9-1993). Any medical college or institution which wishes to increase the admission capacity in MBBS/higher courses (including diploma/degree/higher specialities), has to apply to the Central Government for permission along with the permission of the State Government and that of the university with which it is affiliated and in conformity with the regulations framed by the Medical Council. Only the medical college or institution which is recognised by the Medical Council can so apply."

(iv) another Supreme Court decision reported in (2001) 8 SCC 427 in the case of Medical Council of India vs. Sarang and others "6. In matters of academic standards, courts should not normally interfere or interpret the rules and such matters should be left to the experts in the field. This position has been made clear by this Court in University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao1, State of Kerala v. Kumari T.P. Roshana2 and Shirish Govind Prabhudesai v. State of Maharashtra3. The object of the said Regulation appears to be that although the course of study leading to the IInd professional examination is common to all medical colleges, the sequence of coverage of subjects varies from college to college. Therefore, the requirement of 18 months of study in the college from which the student wants to appear in the examination is appropriately insisted upon. Migration is not normally allowed and has got to be given in exceptional circumstances. In the absence of such a stipulation as contained in Regulation 6(5), it is clear that the migrated student is likely to miss instruction and study in some of the subjects, which will ultimately affect his academic attainments. Therefore, the strained meaning given by the High Court, which actually changes the language of Regulation 6(5), is not permissible. Thus we disagree with the view taken by the High Court and state that the correct interpretation is as given by the Medical Council of India, set forth above by us."

6. I have heard Mr.K.M.Vijayan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.J.Ravindran, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the 1st respondent and Mr.P.Chandrasekar, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and perused the material documents as well as the decisions relied upon by them.

7. An analysis of the case would reveal that the petitioner College is run by Soosaiya Peter Educational Trust, Chennai, which is a Christian Minority Trust. The Trust owns several institutions such as Madha Engineering College, Madha Institute of Management Studies, Madha Institute of Computer Applications, Madha College of Nursing, Madha College of Physiotherapy, Madha College of Education, Madha Dental College & Hospital, Madha Teacher Training Institute and Madha Matriculation School, which are duly approved by Governments at Central and State as well as its affiliating bodies. The Government of India, vide its Letter No.V/12017/75/2006-DE dated 13.07.2007, gave formal permission of the Central Government under Section 10A(4) of the Dentists (Amendment) Act, 1993, for establishment of a new Dental College for the year 2007-2008, with an annual intake of 100 students in I BDS Degree Course from the academic year 2007-2008, for which the fourth respondent University vide its order Proc.No.Affln.I (2)/34144/2006 dated 10.08.2007, granted provisional affiliation to the petitioner college. The University conducted the first inspection of the college during February 2008 and the DCI conducted the first inspection during April 2008 for grant of 2nd year BDS affiliation. On 03.12.2008, the University vide its order Proc.No.Affln.IV (3)/9637/2008 granted continuance of the provisional affiliation for the academic year 2008-2009. The Dental Council of India has inspected the petitioner's college on 06.04.2010 to verify the achievement of the annual target for renewal of Central Government permission for the 3rd year BDS course with 100 seats for the academic session 2010-2011. The DCI, vide its letter No.DE-3(266)-2010/A1363 dated 06.05.2010 directed the petitioner to make good the deficiencies pointed out and to furnish the compliance report. The petitioner duly complied with all the defects and sent a compliance report to the Secretary DCI by their Letter No.MDCH/DCI/Compliance/756/10 dated 10.05.2010 and further on by their letter No.MDCH/DCI/Compliance/781/10 dated 11.06.2010. The petitioner requested the 2nd respondent to consider the compliance report favourably and pass appropriate orders recommending to the 1st respondent for renewal of permission for continuing the 3rd year and admission to the 1st year BDS course in the petitioner College. However, on the basis of the minutes of the DCI circulated in their official website, the Executive Committee has recommended not to renew its permission for the 3rd year BDS Course to the petitioner college and also not to allow admissions in the 1st year BDS course for the academic session 2010-2011.

8. Earlier, the petitioner approached this court for a declaration against the arbitral attitude of the 2nd respondent in W.P.No.12753 of 2010 and this court, by its order dated 22.06.2010, has given the following directions:

"In view of the above submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and considering the plea of the petitioner that the compliance report submitted by them on 11.06.2010 to the 2nd respondent and also taking note of the schedule of admission for the Institution and the counselling date, this court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the urgency involved in the case of Medical admission, directs the 2nd respondent to consider the compliance report, take a decision and forward the recommendations to the 1st respondent within a period of one (1) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, on receipt of such report, the 1st respondent is directed to take a decision within a period of one (1) week. It is made clear that the parties to the proceedings shall strictly adhere to the time schedule in medical admission cases."

9. Thereafter, the petitioner also approached this court for the second time on the same issue for a declaration against the arbitral attitude of the 2nd respondent, in W.P.No.15709 of 2010. This court, in its order dated 28.07.2010 issued the following directions to respondents 1 and 2 :

"Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the circumstances, the 2nd respondent is directed to conduct re-inspection and take a decision and forward the recommendations to the 1st respondent immediately preferably within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, thereafter, on receipt of such report, the 1st respondent is directed to take a decision within a period of one (1) week."

10. The impugned communication is sought to be declared as arbitrary and discriminatory mainly on three grounds. The first one is that the executive committee of the Dental Council of India considered the inspection report of the Council Inspectors dated 02.08.2010 on the dental aspect in respect of one post of Reader. It is pointed out that there is a deficiency of one Reader in the department of Oral & Maxilofacial Surgery since Dr.N.V.Arumugam shown as Professor is not accepted as he was also present in the inspection of proposed Asan Memorial Dental College & Hospital, Kancheepuram, in the same academic session i.e., 2010-2011. This aspect has not been considered from the explanation of the petitioner and a person who is shown as a Reader cannot be a person to be present in the proposed inspection of a particular college, namely, Asan Memorial Dental College and Hospital, Kancheepuram. A future event cannot be a factor to point out deficiency as long as the said Reader is in the position of the petitioner college. Therefore, the reason adduced by the Dental Council in this regard is arbitrary.

11. The second part of deficiency pointed out is with regard to Medical, which is to the effect that three of the lecturers in the department of Pharmacology, namely, M.Nandagopal, P.Karthik and H.Mohanarangam are not having the qualification as per the Dental Council of India norms and they are having M.Pharmacy.

12. In the Inspection Report dated 02.08.2010, no deficiency was pointed out and nothing was indicated about the qualification criteria in respect of the said three persons. Now, all of a sudden, the authorities have changed their stand stating that M.Pharmacy is not a qualification. Here also, the attitude and approach of the Dental Council of India is arbitrary. When in the earlier Inspection Report it was shown that there were nil deficiencies, it is not known to this Court for what reasons, the authorities have changed their mind and pointed out that three professors are not qualified.

13. The third aspect which is pointed out is deficiency with regard to infrastructure particularly that the distance between dental college and attached Government General Hospital is 12 kms. In this regard,it is seen that the Dental Council of India Regulations provide that where no medical college is available in proximity of the proposed dental college the proposed dental college gets itself tied up at last for 5 years with the Government General Hospital having a provision of at least 100 beds and located within a radius of 10 K.M. of the proposed dental college and the tie-up is extendable till it has its own 100 bedded hospital in the same premises. In this regard, the authorities have not taken into account the 10 k.m. radius, instead, they have taken the distance from the gate of the petitioner college up to the Government General Hospital with a distance of 12 k.m., not taking into the 10 kms. radius as provided in the Dental Council Regulations. It is pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that there were different routes from the gate to the hospital and some routes are lesser than what is noted by the authorities and therefore in the absence of any deficiency of infrastructure with regard to the distance between dental college and attached Government General Hospital, the recommendation made by the executive committee is an arbitrary exercise of power, with a clear intention to defeat the very object of providing medical education to the needy people of that area, with which this Court is in complete agreement. Even assuming that the other deficiencies are correct, they are only minor in nature, which are not to withhold the approval to the petitioner college. A perusal of the orders, materials and reports gives an impression to this Court that the authorities have acted arbitrarily.

14. For the above alleged deficiencies, the Dental Council of India recommended to the Government of India, to accept its recommendations and, pursuant to which the Central Government, vide its proceedings dated 14.07.2010, did not permit the petitioner college to admit fresh batch of students in BDS course for the academic year 2010-2011, making it clear that any admission made in violation of the above will be treated as irregular and action under Section 10 B of the Dentists(Amendment) Act,1993 will be initiated.

15. The Union of India, first respondent herein, has mechanically gone into the recommendations of the executive committee of the Dental Council of India, without giving any consideration to the earlier recommendations, wherein nil deficiencies were pointed out, whereas it accepted the recommendations which were made by the committee all-of-a-sudden by changing its view, indicating that three lecturers are not having qualifications and also the other alleged deficiencies as to infrastructure. Therefore, the order of the Union of India dated 14.07.2010, which was passed without verifying the material documents and with total non-application of mind, as a result of which the petitioner college was denied permission to admit fresh batch of students in BDS Course, suffers from mala fides. The action of the respondents 1 and 2 in this regard is contrary to the regulations as well as the material documents placed before them. The deficiencies pointed out are not substantial ones but are minor in nature.

16. Every wide power, the exercise of which has far-reaching repercussion, has inherent limitation on it. It should be exercised to effectuate the purpose of the Act. In legislations enacted for general benefit and common good the responsibility is far graver. It demands purposeful approach. The exercise of discretion should be objective. Test of reasonableness is more strict. The public functionaries should be duty conscious rather than power charged. Its actions and decisions which touch the common man have to be tested on the touchstone of fairness and justice. That which is not fair and just is unreasonable. And what is unreasonable is arbitrary. An arbitrary action is ultra vires. It does not become bona fide and in good faith merely because no personal gain or benefit to the person exercising discretion should be established. An action is mala fide if it is contrary to the purpose for which it was authorised to be exercised. This is the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Mahesh Chandra v. Regional Manager, U.P. Financial Corpn., (1993) 2 SCC 279.

17. In Shri Rama Sugar Industries Ltd. v. State of A.P., (1974) 1 SCC 534, the Supreme Court has held that a public body endowed with a statutory discretion may legitimately adopt general rules or principles of policy to guide itself as to the manner of exercising its own discretion in individual cases, provided that such rules or principles are legally relevant to the exercise of its powers, consistent with the purpose of the enabling legislation and not arbitrary or capricious. Nevertheless, it must not disable itself from exercising a genuine discretion in a particular case directly involving individual interests, hence it must be prepared to consider making an exception to the general rule if the circumstances of the case warrant special treatment. These propositions, evolved mainly in the context of licensing and other regulatory powers, have been applied to other situations, for example, the award of discretionary investment grants and the allocation of pupils to different classes of schools. The amplitude of a discretionary power may, however, be so wide that the competent authority may be impliedly entitled to adopt a fixed rule never to exercise its discretion in favour of a particular class of persons and such a power may be expressly conferred by statute.

18. The Supreme Court in the case of Al-Karim Educational Trust, referred to above, has laid down a proposition that the deficiencies have been substantially complied with and minor deficiencies pointed out in the report are not such as to permit withholding of the affiliation to which the institution is entitled. From the manner in which the deficiencies have been pointed out from time to time, each time the old deficiencies are shown to have been removed, new deficiencies are shown, gives the impression that the affiliation is unnecessarily delayed. In the instant case also, the manner of the respondents in pointing out the deficiencies even though it was shown as nil in the earlier report gives an impression to this Court that the respondents have unnecessarily delayed the process of approval to the petitioner institution.

19. Also, in Man Singh v. State of Haryana, (2008) 12 SCC 331, the Supreme Court has held that any act of the repository of power whether legislative or administrative or quasi-judicial is open to challenge if it is so arbitrary or unreasonable that no fair-minded authority could ever have made it. The concept of equality as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India embraces the entire realm of State action. It would extend to an individual as well not only when he is discriminated against in the matter of exercise of right, but also in the matter of imposing liability upon him. Equals have to be treated equally even in the matter of executive or administrative action. As a matter of fact, the doctrine of equality is now turned as a synonym of fairness in the concept of justice and stands as the most accepted methodology of a governmental action. The administrative action is to be just on the test of fair play and reasonableness.

20. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents in Medical Council of India v. State of Karnataka, (1998) 6 SCC 131 and Medical Council of India v. Sarang, (2001) 8 SCC 427, are to the effect that standards have been laid down by the Medical Council, an expert body, for the purpose of imparting proper medical education and for maintaining uniform standards of medical education throughout the country and seats in colleges cannot be increased indiscriminately without regard to proper infrastructure as per the regulations of the Medical Council and that in the matters of academic standards, Courts should not normally interfere or interpret the rules and such matters should be left to the experts in the field.

21. It is true, in matters of academic standards, this Court normally may not interfere or interpret the rules, but, in the instant case, the petitioner institution is granted permission for first and second years and for renewal of third year BDS course, deficiencies have been pointed by the respondents, when they were already complied with by the petitioner and the said aspect was to be taken into consideration by the authorities before passing the impugned communication. Therefore, the authorities have not acted in conformity with the law, in which event, this Court can very well interfere with the same.

22. The power of the Central Government under Section 10-A of the Dentists (Amendment) Act,1993, to grant permission for establishment of dental colleges has to be exercised fairly and reasonably without arbitrariness. That being so, the action of the respondents herein in denying permission to the petitioner college would amply prove their arbitrariness, which defeats the very object of the provisions contemplated under Section 10-A of the Act.

23. Following the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the above decisions and in view of my findings as above, I am of the firm view that the declaration sought for by the petitioner has to be granted. Accordingly, the impugned communication of the first respondent dated 14.07.2010 is declared as null and void. Writ Petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to renew permission to the petitioner institution for 3rd year BDS course and to allow admissions for fresh batch of students in BDS Course for the academic year 2010-2011 forthwith, keeping in mind the fact that the last date for admission of students is 30.09.2010. Consequently, the connected M.P.No.1 of 2010 is closed.

Index : Yes								  	 22-09-2010
Internet : Yes		
abe/dixit
Note to Office :
Issue order copy today.
To
1.	The Secretary
	Union of India,
	Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
	Department of Health (DE Section),
	Nirman Bhavan, 
	Moulana Azad Road,
	New Delhi  110 011.

2.	The President,
	Dental Council of India, 
	Aiwan-E-Ghalib Marg,
	Kotla Road,
	New Delhi 110 002.

3.	The Director of Medical Education,
	rep. by its Director,
	151, Periyar EVR Road,
	Kilpauk, 
	Chennai 600 010.


4.	The Vice Chancellor,
	Tamil Nadu Dr. MGR Medical University,
	No.69, Anna Salai, Guindy,
	Chennai 600 032.

















							V.DHANAPALAN,J.

Abe/dixit









 order in 
W.P.No.19580 of 2010















Dated:     22.09.2010