DR.A.K.B.SADBHAVANA MISSION TRUST, SARADHA HEALTH CENTRE, KOYILANDY v. STATE OF KERALA and THE PRINCIPAL & CONTROLLING OFFICER, GOVERNMENT HOMEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE, TRIVANDRUM

## IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/15TH JYAISHTA 1935 WP(C).No. 4021 of 2011 (C) --------------------------------------- ## PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- DR.A.K.B.SADBHAVANA MISSION TRUST, SARADHA HEALTH CENTRE, KOYILANDY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, DR.SANU JOHN KOVOOR, AGED 38 YEARS S/O.K.A.ELIAS. BY ADVS.SRI.R.SUDHISH SMT.M.MANJU SRI.K.R.RANJITH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695 001. 2. THE PRINCIPAL & CONTROLLING OFFICER, GOVERNMENT HOMEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE, TRIVANDRUM-695 001. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.R.SYAMKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-06-2013 ALONG WITH W.P.(C) No.29964 of 2011-U, W.P.(C) No.32936 of 2011-N,W.P.(C) No.33926 of 2011-S, W.P.(C) No.7247 of 2012-E & W.A.No.1967 of 2011 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## W.P.(C) NO.4021 OF 2011: ## PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1--TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.2.2004 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2--TRUE COPY OF THE SAID NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3--TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE EXPERT COMMITTEE TO THE IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4--TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.8.2004 IN WPC NO.24592/2004. EXT.P5--TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.12.2004. EXT.P6--TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA NO.960/2005 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P7--TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6.7.2005 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P8--TRUE COPY OF THE I INTERIM ORDER DATED 25.10.2005 IN WPC 27538/2005 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P9--TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.2.2007 IN CCC NO.14/2007 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P10--TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 5.3.2007 IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.27538/2005. EXT.P11--TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.7.2007 IN CCC NO.1034/2007 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P12--TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.3.2009 IN WPC 12556/08 AND CONNECTED CASE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P13--TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 5.10.2009 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND GOVERNMENT. EXT.P14--TRUE COPY OF THE G.O RT NO. 4284/2010/H&FWD DATED 30.10.2010 OF THE IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P15--TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.RT NO.1447/2008/H & FWD DATED 22.4.2008. EXT.P16--TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.485/A2 (C3)2008/GHMCT (DHME) DATED 29.12.2008 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P17--TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE KERALA HOMEOPATHY SUBORDINATE SERVICE, 1999. EXT.P18--TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 9.5.2011 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL COUNCIL OF HOMEOPATHY, NEW DELHI TO THE RESPONDENTS. EXT.P19--TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 9.1.2005 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL COUNCIL OF HOMEOPATHY, NEW DELHI. ## W.P.(C) NO.4021 OF 2011: EXT.P20--TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22.11.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P21--TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 2.12.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P19--TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, ATTACHED TO THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. (PRODUCED ALONG WITH I.A.No.8688/2011) EXT.P20--TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 12.5.2011 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER.(PRODUCED ALONG WITH I.A.No.8688/2011) ## RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL ## **K.M.JOSEPH & A.HARIPRASAD, JJ.** --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.4021 of 2011-C W.P.(C) No.29964 of 2011-U W.P.(C) No.32936 of 2011-N W.P.(C) No.33926 of 2011-S W.P.(C) No.7247 of 2012-E & W.A.No.1967 of 2011 ----------------------------------------Dated, this the 5[th] day of June, 2013 ## J U D G M E N T ## K.M.Joseph, J. These batch of Writ Petitions and one Writ Appeal (W.A.No.1967/2011) being connected, they are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The question arises essentially with reference to the running of Nurse-Cum-Pharmacist Course in Homeopathy. The Government of Kerala issued a Notification calling for applications from self financing institutions for starting NurseCum-Pharmacist Course in Homeopathy by order dated 17.2.2004. Ext.P2 in (W.P.(C) No.4021/2011) purports to be the basic requirement for starting the course. Petitioner in W.P. (C) No.4021/2011 is also the petitioner in W.P.(C) W.P.(C) No.4021 of 2011-C W.P.(C) No.29964 of 2011-U W.P.(C) No.32936 of 2011-N W.P.(C) No.33926 of 2011-S W.P.(C) No.7247 of 2012-E & W.A.No.1967 of 2011 2 No.32936/2011 (hereinafter referred to as the “Trust”) also applied. Three institutions including the Trust were considered. Thereafter, after some litigation the Trust was selected. There was litigation which we will refer later on. Suffice to say, the course was started in the institution of the Trust in the year 2009 after execution of an agreement with the Government. While so, the Government issued proceedings dated 30.10.2010 (Ext.P14 in W.P.(C) No.4021/2011 which reads as follows: _“Nurse-Cum-Pharmacist Course (NCP) in Homoeo is being conducted at the two Government Homoeopathic Medical Colleges and in a private institution namely Dr.AKB's Mission Trust, Kozhikode for the last few years. Government have reviewed the question of continuance of the course and have decided earlier to redesign the NCP Course into two courses in Pharmacy (Homoeo) and Nursing (Homoeo). A_ W.P.(C) No.4021 of 2011-C W.P.(C) No.29964 of 2011-U W.P.(C) No.32936 of 2011-N W.P.(C) No.33926 of 2011-S W.P.(C) No.7247 of 2012-E & W.A.No.1967 of 2011 3 _committee was constituted to study the restructuring of the course and to submit recommendation to Government. The expert committee have recommended to discontinue the NCP Course and to start new courses in D.Pharm (Homoeo) and Nursing (Homoeo)._ _Government have examined the matter in detail and order that the NCP Course will be discontinued from the current academic year in the two Government Homoeopathic Medical Colleges. However in view of the existing agreement and Court directions the Dr.AKB's Mission Trust, Kozhikode is permitted to conduct a final batch of the NCP Course for this year with an intake of 30 students (with admission only in Management quota). Government will not allot students for the current year to the_ W.P.(C) No.4021 of 2011-C W.P.(C) No.29964 of 2011-U W.P.(C) No.32936 of 2011-N W.P.(C) No.33926 of 2011-S W.P.(C) No.7247 of 2012-E & W.A.No.1967 of 2011 4 _course run by the Dr.AKB's Mission Trust,_ _Kozhikode.”_ 3. In W.P.(C) No.4021/2011 the Trust obtained an interim order which reads as follows: _“Pursuant to a series of litigations, petitioner was held entitled to start course_ _called Nurse-cum-Pharmacist course in_ _Homeopathy. As a result, Ext.P13 agreement was executed with the Government on 05.10.2009 and course was_ _also commenced. Subsequently, Government issued Ext.P14 dated 30.10.2010 accepting the report of a committee and discontinuing the aforesaid course in Homeopathy. It is challenging Ext.P14, this writ petition is filed._ _In this I.A., the prayer sought by the petitioner is to permit the petitioner to_ W.P.(C) No.4021 of 2011-C W.P.(C) No.29964 of 2011-U W.P.(C) No.32936 of 2011-N W.P.(C) No.33926 of 2011-S W.P.(C) No.7247 of 2012-E & W.A.No.1967 of 2011 5 _continue the said course in its college during the Academic Year 2011-2012. This relief can be considered only at the final stage and not at an interlocutory stage, for the reason that granting of the relief will have the effect of allowing the writ petition itself. However, it will be open to the petitioner to take up their grievance with the Government and it is open to the Government to consider the same.”_ Pursuant to the same, the Government permitted the Trust to continue the course for the year 2011-2012. It is to be noted that the prayers in W.P.(C) No.4021/2011 are as follows: _“i) Declare that the petitioner is entitled to continue the Nurse-Cum-Pharmacist course in its institutions in terms of Exhibit P-13 as may be modified by this Hon'ble Court. ii) Issue a writ of certiorari or other_ W.P.(C) No.4021 of 2011-C W.P.(C) No.29964 of 2011-U W.P.(C) No.32936 of 2011-N W.P.(C) No.33926 of 2011-S W.P.(C) No.7247 of 2012-E & W.A.No.1967 of 2011 6 _appropriate writ or order or direction quashing Ext.P14 and P-21 to the extent it directs to stop the Nurse-Cum-Pharmacist Course in Homeopathy in the petitioner's College from the academic year 2011-2012._ _iii) Issue a wit of Mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue the Nurse-cumPharmacist Course in Homeopathy in its institution in terms of Exhibit P13. iv) set aside Exhibit P15 and P21.”_ While so, the Kerala Government Medical Officers Association represented by its President as first petitioner and two others who claim to have passed the NCP course filed W.P. (C) No.29964/2011. Therein they sought a declaration that the Trust is not entitled to continue the NCP course in their school for 2011-2012 academic year. They further sought a writ of W.P.(C) No.4021 of 2011-C W.P.(C) No.29964 of 2011-U W.P.(C) No.32936 of 2011-N W.P.(C) No.33926 of 2011-S W.P.(C) No.7247 of 2012-E & W.A.No.1967 of 2011 7 certiorari and to quash the decision of the Government by which the Government permitted the Trust to continue the course for 2011-2012 academic year (produced as Ext.P2). The further prayer sought by them is a writ of mandamus directing the State of Kerala represented by the Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department to start the diploma course of two year and three months in Pharmacy contemplated in the Government order dated 30.10.2010 which we have extracted herein before. 4. Originally, the learned Single Judge stayed the decision of the Government permitting the Trust to run the course for the year 2011-2012. The same however came to be vacated by the learned Single Judge by the following order dated 9.12.2011. ## _“2. Third respondent has filed a counter_ _affidavit, wherein it is stated thus:-_ _“In Ext.P2 dated 1.10.2011, the Government permitted the 3[rd] respondent_ W.P.(C) No.4021 of 2011-C W.P.(C) No.29964 of 2011-U W.P.(C) No.32936 of 2011-N W.P.(C) No.33926 of 2011-S W.P.(C) No.7247 of 2012-E & W.A.No.1967 of 2011 8 _to continue the course for the academic year 2011-2012 subject to the existing terms and conditions of admission. Accordingly, the 3[rd] respondent started the selection process, as done in the previous year and on the basis of merit filled up its seats. After completing the selection process, as aforesaid, the 3[rd] respondent started the classes on 20.11.2011 for the 30 students selected by it. It is submitted that, the 3[rd] respondent came to know about the above writ petition long thereafter, only when the notice was served on the 3[rd] respondent 28.11.2011._ _However, later on enquiry, the 3[rd] respondent, learnt that this Honourable Court has issued an order of stay dated_ W.P.(C) No.4021 of 2011-C W.P.(C) No.29964 of 2011-U W.P.(C) No.32936 of 2011-N W.P.(C) No.33926 of 2011-S W.P.(C) No.7247 of 2012-E & W.A.No.1967 of 2011 9 _10.11.2011. However, it was not communicated to the 3[rd] respondent. As already submitted, the writ petition is without any basis or merit. The 3[rd] respondent is having every infrastructure for running the course. The 3[rd]_ _respondent entitled to continue the course on the basis of Ext.P2 Government Order. So, if the interim order dated 10.11.2011 in the above writ petition is not vacated and the writ petition is not dismissed, the 3[rd] respondent, its trustees, beneficiaries and students and staff of the institution will be put to irreparable injury, loss and hardship.”_ _3. In the light of the above facts, I see no justification to continue the interim order as such. Therefore, the interim_ W.P.(C) No.4021 of 2011-C W.P.(C) No.29964 of 2011-U W.P.(C) No.32936 of 2011-N W.P.(C) No.33926 of 2011-S W.P.(C) No.7247 of 2012-E & W.A.No.1967 of 2011 10 _order will stand vacated. However, I clarify that anything that is done by the third respondent on the strength of Ext.P2, will be subject to the result of the writ petition.”_ Against the same, the petitioners in W.P.C.No.29964/2011 filed W.A.No.1967/2011. 5. In the meantime, there took place another development on 2.8.2011. An inspection was apparently conducted in the premises of the Trust purported to be on 2.8.2011. The report would tend to show _inter alia_ that there are no basic facilities available. Ext.P12 (in W.P.(C) No.32936/2011) purports to be letter issued by the Principal and Controlling Officer to the Principal of the Trust directing admission of certain students. Challenging the aforesaid report and the letter the Trust has approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.32936/2011. The same was presented on 8.12.2011. W.P.(C) No.4021 of 2011-C W.P.(C) No.29964 of 2011-U W.P.(C) No.32936 of 2011-N W.P.(C) No.33926 of 2011-S W.P.(C) No.7247 of 2012-E & W.A.No.1967 of 2011 11 In the meantime, in the writ appeal the Bench passed the following interim order dated 21.12.2011 which reads as hereunder. _“3. Since there was already a report by the team appointed by the 2[nd] respondent that the 3[rd] respondent College did not have the facilities to run course study in Nurse cum Pharmacist in Homoeopathy, we feel an inspection is required to be conducted by the 2[nd] respondent personally in the new premises if there is a shifting of the College. The 2[nd] respondent is directed to conduct inspection and file a report before this court within two weeks from now. He should also report to this Court whether the 3[rd] respondent institution is actually owned and run by Dr.Ajayakumar Babu with benamies, which is the_ W.P.(C) No.4021 of 2011-C W.P.(C) No.29964 of 2011-U W.P.(C) No.32936 of 2011-N W.P.(C) No.33926 of 2011-S W.P.(C) No.7247 of 2012-E & W.A.No.1967 of 2011 12 _allegation in the other connected cases. He will also report whether the 3[rd] respondent Institution collects fees in excess of rates permitted by the Government.”_ 6. Initially, it is alleged the inspection was conducted on 13.7.2012 copy of the report came to be produced under a memo (in W.P.(C) No.29964/2011). Objections came to be filed to the said report by the Trust. There is another report dated 30.11.2012. We notice that, thereafter the Government of Kerala issued the following communication with copy to the Trust. _“Inviting your attention to the reference_ _cited, I am to inform you that the inspection conducted on 26.07.2011 in the institution under Dr.AKB's Mission Trust is not valid inspection as the inspection report had not been given to the institution under clause 7 of the_ W.P.(C) No.4021 of 2011-C W.P.(C) No.29964 of 2011-U W.P.(C) No.32936 of 2011-N W.P.(C) No.33926 of 2011-S W.P.(C) No.7247 of 2012-E & W.A.No.1967 of 2011 13 _agreement executed between the_ _management and Government._ _In the circumstances, I am to request you to conduct a denovo inspection in the institution by following the procedures laid down in clause 7 of_ _the agreement.”_ 7. The first petitioner in W.P.(C) No.29964/2011 has challenged the said communication (Ext..P13). Appropriate action is also sought under the Contempt of Courts Act against the order of Ext.P13 in W.P.(C) No.7247/2012). Thereafter, there is another inspection which was conducted on 28.5.2012, report is produced as Annexure R3C in W.A.No.1967/2011. We will refer to the report in greater detail in the course of our judgment. 8. W.P.(C) No.33926 of 2011 purports to be the Suo Motu writ petition wherein apparently this Court thought it fit to take suo motu proceedings in the light of the inspection report W.P.(C) No.4021 of 2011-C W.P.(C) No.29964 of 2011-U W.P.(C) No.32936 of 2011-N W.P.(C) No.33926 of 2011-S W.P.(C) No.7247 of 2012-E & W.A.No.1967 of 2011 14 which we have already referred wherein it is _inter alia_ noted that basic facilities are wanting in the institution run by the Trust. 9. It is common case that the Trust ran the NCP course for the year 2011-2012, that is to say, students attended the course and examination also was held though no doubt in March, 2013. In this regard, we may also note the following interim order dated 29.3.2012 in W.A.No.1967 of 2011 which reads as under: _“The question raised is whether the 3[rd] respondent's institution running the Homoeo Nursing cum Pharmacist course, has the infrastructural and instructional facilities to conduct the course properly as per the agreement with the government. When this Court called for a report, Principal Controlling Officer reported that the institute has no facility. Appellant's allegation is that the patients in the_ W.P.(C) No.4021 of 2011-C W.P.(C) No.29964 of 2011-U W.P.(C) No.32936 of 2011-N W.P.(C) No.33926 of 2011-S W.P.(C) No.7247 of 2012-E & W.A.No.1967 of 2011 15 _hospital attached to the institute are administered allopathic medicines and there is no Homoeo hospital in existence as claimed by 3[rd] respondent. In any case, we feel, the students who are now undergoing the course of study and completing the course in this academic year can be permitted to appear in the examination. We therefore, direct the Principal Controlling Officer and the Govt. to arrange for conduct of examination at the earliest. However, before issuing approval for the 3[rd] respondent to run the course in the next academic year and if already approved before allotment of students, the respondents should get prior permission from this Court. It is for the 3[rd] respondent to arrange to establish a_ W.P.(C) No.4021 of 2011-C W.P.(C) No.29964 of 2011-U W.P.(C) No.32936 of 2011-N W.P.(C) No.33926 of 2011-S W.P.(C) No.7247 of 2012-E & W.A.No.1967 of 2011 16 _Homoeo hospital, without which we do not think the course can be properly run.”_ 10. Thereafter, though the Trust sought for permission to continue the course by filing I.A.No.500 of 2012 (W.A.No.1967/2011) no orders were obtained on the said I.A. 11. We heard the learned counsel for the parties. 12. The learned counsel for the Trust would address the following contentions before us. He would submit that the whole process started in the year 2004 when the Government decided to institute the Nurse Cum Pharmacist Course. He would point out that there were considerable litigation which the Trust had to resort to. He would take us to the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge ( Ext.P12 in W.P.(C) No.4021 of 2011). He would submit that, though the Trust was found to have all the facilities and after three institutions were shortlisted out of ten and it was found that the Trust satisfied the requirements still the Trust was not allowed to enjoy the fruits of the selection. It is pointed out that, the Trust is set up for the upliftment of the W.P.(C) No.4021 of 2011-C W.P.(C) No.29964 of 2011-U W.P.(C) No.32936 of 2011-N W.P.(C) No.33926 of 2011-S W.P.(C) No.7247 of 2012-E & W.A.No.1967 of 2011 17 members of the Schedule Caste/Scheduled Tribes especially in the field of eduction. Article 15 (4) and Article 46 of the Constitution of India are invoked before us. It is pointed out that, even after Ext.P12 judgment of the learned Single Judge wherein the learned Single Judge directed that agreement is to be executed in terms of the earlier judgment (Ext.P3 referred to in Ext.P12) in the agreement forwarded it contained various objectionable clauses. The Trust, thereupon, challenged the objectionable clauses in W.P.No.No.24187/2009 and therein an interim order was passed reserving liberty to the petitioner to maintain the challenge even while entering into the agreement. It is, thereupon, the agreement was entered. A good deal of delay occurred in the process. The agreement was executed in the year 2009. The institution was run for hardly a year when the Government purported to take the decision to redesign the course as mentioned in the order which we have already extracted. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the decision is afflicted with malafides. There is breach of Article 14 W.P.(C) No.4021 of 2011-C W.P.(C) No.29964 of 2011-U W.P.(C) No.32936 of 2011-N W.P.(C) No.33926 of 2011-S W.P.(C) No.7247 of 2012-E & W.A.No.1967 of 2011 18 of the Constitution of India, it is contended. It is further submitted that nearly Rs.5 crores was expended for the purpose of complying with the requirements. The Trust is entitled to invoke the principle of _promissory estoppel_ . It is submitted that, at least the Trust expected that it can run the course for a reasonable period of time. Having regard to the factual position, even that promise is sought to be set at naught by issuance of the impugned decision. It is submitted that though there is reference to expert committee it all originated at the hands of somebody in the Secretariat. It is pointed out that the expert committee report as such is not produced. It is further pointed out that a perusal of Ext.P17 in W.P.(C) No.4021/2011 which purports to be the Special Rules unambiguously reveals that the NCP Course is still a recognized qualification. It is further contended that, actually, the Government was not running the course which are referred to in the impugned decision and only the Trust was running the course in the State. It is next contended with reference to Ext.P18 and Ext.P19 in W.P.(C) W.P.(C) No.4021 of 2011-C W.P.(C) No.29964 of 2011-U W.P.(C) No.32936 of 2011-N W.P.(C) No.33926 of 2011-S W.P.(C) No.7247 of 2012-E & W.A.No.1967 of 2011 19 No.4021/2011 that there is an insuperable obstacle for the Government to run Diploma course in that for starting such a course as pointed out in Ext.P18 permission from the Central Council of Homoeopathy is required and there must be facilities. It is pointed out that, though the decision was taken in the year 2010, even now the courses contemplated in the impugned decision have not been started. It is submitted that, there is demand for persons possessing NCP qualification. In this regard the later special rules countenancing the said qualification is enlisted in support of the submission. 13. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the Trust that, as far as the first inspection report is concerned, it is alleged to be done without notice to the Trust. It is contended that it is a cryptic report as the committee merely states that the Trust does not have the basic facilities. He would pose the question as to how an expert committee can make such a bald finding? He would point out that however things have been put in a proper prospective in the report relating to the W.P.(C) No.4021 of 2011-C W.P.(C) No.29964 of 2011-U W.P.(C) No.32936 of 2011-N W.P.(C) No.33926 of 2011-S W.P.(C) No.7247 of 2012-E & W.A.No.1967 of 2011 20 inspection dated 28.5.2012 produced as Ext.R3C in W.A.No.1967 of 2011. He would point out that the report shows that there are sufficient facilities. He would point out that originally, the Trust when it was favoured with the sanction was functioning in a rented premises and thereafter it shifted to the premises and thereafter facilities are available in the premises. He would submit that, the first report which the Trust challenges cannot hold good and of course buttresses his argument with reference to R3(C) report. In regard to the second report which was done pursuant to the order passed by the Division Bench he would point out that objections have been filed against the same and the actual position is brought out in the R3(C) report. 14. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.29964 of 2011 and the appellant in W.A.No.1967 of 2011 as also the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.7247 of 2012 would address before us the following arguments. It is submitted that, the Government took a conscious decision to redesign the course in the year 2010. There is no basis for not W.P.(C) No.4021 of 2011-C W.P.(C) No.29964 of 2011-U W.P.(C) No.32936 of 2011-N W.P.(C) No.33926 of 2011-S W.P.(C) No.7247 of 2012-E & W.A.No.1967 of 2011 21 implementing the same. It is, no doubt, submitted that as far as the first and second prayers in W.P.(C) No.29964 of 2011 are concerned, perhaps in the context of passage of time, the said prayers may not survive for our consideration. It is, no doubt, true that, as pointed out running of the course for the year 2011-2012 is subject to the decision. But, it is not in dispute that the said period is run out, students attended the course, examinations were held. In such circumstances, we are not inclined to consider the said prayers. However, he would press the third prayer in W.P.(C) No.29964 of 2011, namely, he would contend that there is no reason for the Government for not to implement the decision to start the course which is a Diploma course. It is pointed out that, the first petitioner is an Association of the Kerala Government Homoeo Medical Officers. At the instance of the first petitioner the Government decided to revisit the desirability of having NCP course which ultimately culminated in a policy decision being framed. If students attend the new course, the Medical Officers would get better assistance, W.P.(C) No.4021 of 2011-C W.P.(C) No.29964 of 2011-U W.P.(C) No.32936 of 2011-N W.P.(C) No.33926 of 2011-S W.P.(C) No.7247 of 2012-E & W.A.No.1967 of 2011 22 runs the argument. 15. As far as W.A.No.1967 of 2011 is concerned, that is an appeal against the order by which the learned Single Judge vacated the interim order. In the light of the view we have taken in regard to prayers 1 and 2 in W.P.(C) No.29964 of 2011 the writ appeal may not survive as such for our consideration. But, at the same time, we may have to bear in mind the interim order dated 21.12.2011 as also the order dated 29.3.2012 which we have already referred to for the purpose of deciding these cases. 16. Learned Government Pleader would support the Government decision to redesign the NCP course. He would point out Ext.P15 in W.P.(C) No.4021 of 2011 and rebut the contention of the Trust that there was no expert committee. He would point out that a three member expert committee was constituted. He would further point out that the proposal was to raise the qualification for candidates for admission to new course from standard 10 to plus two. The expert committee has given its W.P.(C) No.4021 of 2011-C W.P.(C) No.29964 of 2011-U W.P.(C) No.32936 of 2011-N W.P.(C) No.33926 of 2011-S W.P.(C) No.7247 of 2012-E & W.A.No.1967 of 2011 23 report after the redesigning of the course. This Court should be loathe in sitting in judgment over the said policy decision, it is contended. He would further submit that Government has absolutely no malafides and if at all the Government was favourable to the Trust as is evident from the fact that the Government permitted the Trust no doubt pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.4021 of 2011 to run the course for the year 2011-2012. He would further submit that absolutely no case is made out for applying the doctrine of promissory estoppel. He drew our attention to para 1 of the agreement entered into between the Trust and Government and contended that it provides that the right of the Trust will be subject to the Government orders mentioned therein and issued from time to time. He would submit that, actually the Government was running the course of NCP and the contrary contention cannot be believed in the light of the action of the Trust in moving this Court, making averments to the effect that examination is going to be held in the Government institution W.P.(C) No.4021 of 2011-C W.P.(C) No.29964 of 2011-U W.P.(C) No.32936 of 2011-N W.P.(C) No.33926 of 2011-S W.P.(C) No.7247 of 2012-E & W.A.No.1967 of 2011 24 with reference to a particular date. It is also pointed out that the Trust does not have any specific contention to the effect that the Government is not running NCP as is sought out to be made out. He would further point out that actually the decision of the Government to redesign the course was not implemented because of the pendency of the petitions before this court. He would point out that, actually under the Homoeopathy Central Council Act, 1973 Section 12A was inserted in the year 2002 and Ext.P18 and P19 in W.P.(C) No.4021 of 2011 were issued in the year 2001. He further drew our attention to Sec.2 (g) which defines recognized medical qualification as follows: _“g)”recognized medical qualification” means any_ _of the medical qualifications in Homeopathy,_ ## _included in the Second or the Third Schedule.”_ He would therefore contend that clause in Section 12A which was inserted with effect from 2002 would make it applicable only in respect of Degree and Pre-degree course and what is involved under the impugned policy decision is W.P.(C) No.4021 of 2011-C W.P.(C) No.29964 of 2011-U W.P.(C) No.32936 of 2011-N W.P.(C) No.33926 of 2011-S W.P.(C) No.7247 of 2012-E & W.A.No.1967 of 2011 25 introduction of Diploma course in Pharmacy and Nursing and the objections which were voiced by the Central Government in Ext.P18 in the year 2001 may not hold good. But, he nonetheless points out the State has written to the Central Government though permission as such is not strictly necessary. Decision from the government is awaited. 17. Learned Government Pleader further contended that the Court may take note of the fact that Government had permitted the Trust to run the course for the year 2011-2012, no doubt, pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court. The Trust has not chosen it fit to challenge the said decision and therefore the Trust cannot be permitted to insist for the right to continue the course after 2011-2012. W.P.(C) 7247 of 2012 no doubt is filed challenging the decision (Ext.P13) by which de novo inspection was directed. 18. Admittedly, the Trust was selected to run the NCP Course in the self financing sector and the Trust has approached this court on more than one occasion. This Court notes that in W.P.(C) No.4021 of 2011-C W.P.(C) No.29964 of 2011-U W.P.(C) No.32936 of 2011-N W.P.(C) No.33926 of 2011-S W.P.(C) No.7247 of 2012-E & W.A.No.1967 of 2011 26 Ext.P12 judgment in W.P.(C) No.4021/2011 this Court had affirmed right to commence course and discountenanced attempt of the Government to take stand that the course prosecuted by the students in 2008 cannot be treated as regular. It is further noted that the approval of the Government need not be renewed from year to year. Once an institution is established and the course offered by it is approved, then renewal of the approval every year brings about an element of uncertainty and would also instill an unnecessary anxiety in the minds of the students it was held. Instead it would suffice, if the Government makes it clear that the approval is liable to be withdrawn if anyone of the conditions which is imposed by it and which could be legitimately made part of the agreement to be executed with the Government are not complied with, it was further held. Thereafter the agreement came to be executed on 5.10.2009. Admittedly, the course was run thereafter. It is on 30.10.2010 that the Government took the decision to discontinue W.P.(C) No.4021 of 2011-C W.P.(C) No.29964 of 2011-U W.P.(C) No.32936 of 2011-N W.P.(C) No.33926 of 2011-S W.P.(C) No.7247 of 2012-E & W.A.No.1967 of 2011 27 the NCP course in the two government Homoeopathic Medical college. But, taking note of the existing agreement and Court directions, the Trust was permitted to conduct final batch of the NCP course for the year 2010 with an intake of 30 students. It is made clear that the students will not be allotted by the Government for the current year course. 19. We are of the view that it may not be open to the Trust to contend that the decision taken by the Government is afflicted with the vice of arbitrariness. Any arbitrary act by the State undoubtedly must perish when placed side by side with the requirement of fairness mandated under Article 14 of the Constitution. But, we must also consider as to what is meant by arbitrariness. Under the principle of judicial review an administrative decision can be interfered if the decision is perverse inter alia. A perverse decision is one which no person would take in the circumstance of the case. It is perverse decision if there are no materials to support such decision. When the Court examines the challenge to a State act on the ground W.P.(C) No.4021 of 2011-C W.P.(C) No.29964 of 2011-U W.P.(C) No.32936 of 2011-N W.P.(C) No.33926 of 2011-S W.P.(C) No.7247 of 2012-E & W.A.No.1967 of 2011 28 that it is arbitrary, it is not sufficient that the Court entertains the belief that the decision is wrong. Merely erroneous decision in the Courts perception cannot make it arbitrary. A writ Court is not an appellate court. It exercises supervisory jurisdiction. We must also bear in mind that all governmental decision making process involves the element of experiment. Government must have free play in the joints and right to take policy decision which it considers is best in the interest of the public. Therefore unless and until the decision is palpably wrong and so unfair the Court cannot interfere on the basis that it is arbitrary. _In Sanchit Bansal and Another v. Joint Admission Board and Others {2012_ _(1) SCC 157}_ the Apex Court held as follows: _“An action is said to be arbitrary and capricious, where a person, in particular, a person in authority does any action based on individual discretion by ignoring prescribed rules, procedure or law and the action or decision is founded on prejudice or_ W.P.(C) No.4021 of 2011-C W.P.(C) No.29964 of 2011-U W.P.(C) No.32936 of 2011-N W.P.(C) No.33926 of 2011-S W.P.(C) No.7247 of 2012-E & W.A.No.1967 of 2011 29 _preference rather than reason or fact. To be termed as arbitrary and capricious, the action must be illogical and whimsical, something without any reasonable explanation. When an action or procedure seeks to achieve a specific objective in furtherance of education in a bona fide manner, by adopting a process which is uniform and non-discriminatory, it cannot be described as arbitrary or capricious or mala fide.”_ 20. In this case, the government decided to have an NCP course in the year 2004. It is a certificate course. It is a one year course. Further more, a person who has passed 10[th] standard can attend the said course. The Government decided to have a relook at the issue. It is not as if the government proceeded to take the decision without any material. An expert committee was constituted. No doubt, the Trust would point out W.P.(C) No.4021 of 2011-C W.P.(C) No.29964 of 2011-U W.P.(C) No.32936 of 2011-N W.P.(C) No.33926 of 2011-S W.P.(C) No.7247 of 2012-E & W.A.No.1967 of 2011 30 one of the members of the committee is a person against whom they allege malafides and who is really behind the whole matter. But, we must notice that, at this juncture that the plea of malafide cannot be raised also as the person against whom malafides is alleged is not made a party. The burden of establishing malafide is heavy on the person who makes the allegation. We may notice that apart from the said person there are two others. About them there is no allegation as such. If the Government decides that a particular course which it has started may not be desirable and a new course is necessary or redesigning of the course is essential as it were would better serve the purpose at hand, it is not for the writ Court to substitute what it may consider as the better way of doing things or to continue the position as it obtained and command the government to preserve the status quo. Any such judicial vetoing of executive action would also be in the teeth of demarcation of powers between the three organs of the State. The Court's jurisdiction to interfere should not be at the risk of W.P.(C) No.4021 of 2011-C W.P.(C) No.29964 of 2011-U W.P.(C) No.32936 of 2011-N W.P.(C) No.33926 of 2011-S W.P.(C) No.7247 of 2012-E & W.A.No.1967 of 2011 31 undermining the well established principle that the power of the Court to interfere is only when if the action is essentially illegal or unconstitutional. In respect of most of the matters no doubt it becomes the duty of the Court to support the executive action so that the State is enabled to achieve its constitutional goals. From this prospective we feel that it may not be open to the Trust to contend that the decision is arbitrary or malafide. One of the other grounds on which a policy could be impugned is violation of the fundamental rights under the Constitution. The only fundamental right which is invoked is under Article 15 (4) which reads as follows: _“15 (4) Nothing in this article or in clause (2)_ _of article 29 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.”_ W.P.(C) No.4021 of 2011-C W.P.(C) No.29964 of 2011-U W.P.(C) No.32936 of 2011-N W.P.(C) No.33926 of 2011-S W.P.(C) No.7247 of 2012-E & W.A.No.1967 of 2011 32 21. Learned counsel for the Trust himself fairly submits it is an enabling provision. We are also not to overlook the fact that when the selection was made it was made with reference to certain objective criteria to be fulfilled. The Trust was not selected on the basis that it was intended for the benefit of the upliftment of members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes. No such preference in favour of the Trust on the score that it is intended to support the upliftment of the members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe has been brought to our notice. 22. Another ground on which the policy can be challenged is that a statute is violated. No such statute is brought to our notice which stands violated on account of the adoption of the policy which is impugned before us. 23. What remains to be considered is plea of promissory estoppel. Principle of promissory estoppel is an equitable principle. It evolved over a period of time. Now there are two new recruits enlisted by Courts to do justice, namely, the W.P.(C) No.4021 of 2011-C W.P.(C) No.29964 of 2011-U W.P.(C) No.32936 of 2011-N W.P.(C) No.33926 of 2011-S W.P.(C) No.7247 of 2012-E & W.A.No.1967 of 2011 33 doctrine of proportionality and doctrine of legitimate expectation. Actually, the doctrine of proportionality was from 1952 itself under the Indian Constitution used under Article 19 in respect of legislative regulation of fundamental rights. In this case while it is true that proceedings originated in the year 2004 with the notification issued and there were series of litigation which culminated in the agreement in 2009 and institution ran for a short period, there is no case for the Trust that it is ever held out to it that the course will be continued for long period of time or it can be continued for a fixed period. The learned counsel for the Trust pointed out that there is no need to invoke promissory estoppel, if there is an agreement that it can run for a fixed period. We may notice the rights which originated in the proceedings with the notification ultimately culminated in an agreement. Even if we hold that the contents in para 1 that the right will be subject to various government orders has only indicated that when the right is exercised it will be subject to the restriction contained in the government orders, we would still W.P.(C) No.4021 of 2011-C W.P.(C) No.29964 of 2011-U W.P.(C) No.32936 of 2011-N W.P.(C) No.33926 of 2011-S W.P.(C) No.7247 of 2012-E & W.A.No.1967 of 2011 34 think that government cannot be tied down and barred from enunciating a policy for the benefit of the public and for the upliftment of academic standards. We would think that the decision taken by the government raising the educational qualification as noted from a minimum educational qualification of 10[th] standard to plus two and redesigning the course on the basis of expert committee report is clearly in public interest. 24. The argument of the Trust that having spent Rs.5 crores it entertained the feeling that it could continue at least for a reasonable period and therefore the principle of promissory estoppel applies also does not appeal to us. It may be true that the Trust made investment. But, we would think that when the decision taken by the government is in public interest and in particular when we take note of the fact that the government has decided to close down the course not only in the institution of the Trust but also in governmental institutions, we are left with the feeling that the decision is in public interest. As against such a decision taken in public interest particularly in academic W.P.(C) No.4021 of 2011-C W.P.(C) No.29964 of 2011-U W.P.(C) No.32936 of 2011-N W.P.(C) No.33926 of 2011-S W.P.(C) No.7247 of 2012-E & W.A.No.1967 of 2011 35 matters when the government conducts examination and the government issues certificate, to say that government should be deprived of the power to redesign the course is unacceptable. 25. We are of the view that the Trust has not been able to as such establish the making out of a promise as such that it can continue without the government having the right to revisit the issue. At any rate, in the teeth of the public interest which underlies the new policy we do not think that the Trust has made out a case as such. 26. The next question which arises is whether in the light of the fact that the policy is not yet actually implemented whether this Court should issue a direction to consider the case of the Trust. This question also is interconnected with the relief sought by the Kerala Government Medical Officers Association and two other petitioners, namely that the policy adopted by the government in the year 2010 must be implemented within a time frame. Having held the decision to redesign the course valid, we cannot issue a direction to consider the case of Trust. As far as W.P.(C) No.4021 of 2011-C W.P.(C) No.29964 of 2011-U W.P.(C) No.32936 of 2011-N W.P.(C) No.33926 of 2011-S W.P.(C) No.7247 of 2012-E & W.A.No.1967 of 2011 36 the Kerala Government Medical Association and others are concerned,we pose the question as to what is the legal right which would be the foundation for a writ of mandamus? Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the writ court under Article 226 is endowed with wide jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on the judgments of the Apex Court reported in _Comptroller And Auditor General v. K.S.Jagannathan & Anr. (AIR 87 SC 537)_ , _Shri.Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandasjiswami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and Ors. v. V.R.Rudani and Ors. (AIR 1989 SC 1607)_ and the judgment of the Apex Court reported in _Secretary, Cannanore District Muslim Educational Association, Karimbam v. State of Kerala and Ors. (2010 (6) SCC 373)_ _**.**_ 27. There can be no quarrel with the proposition that writ of mandamus is not to be construed in a narrow sense. The writ Courts in India are not to be tramelled by the procedural requirements which weighed with the English courts. The extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 vested in the High Court is W.P.(C) No.4021 of 2011-C W.P.(C) No.29964 of 2011-U W.P.(C) No.32936 of 2011-N W.P.(C) No.33926 of 2011-S W.P.(C) No.7247 of 2012-E & W.A.No.1967 of 2011 37 in one way broader than the jurisdiction even exercised by the Apex Court under Article 32 of the Constitution as the jurisdiction under Article 32 can be used only for the purpose of enforcing a fundamental right whereas there is no such restriction under Article 226. A writ of mandamus will lie when there is a legal right and a public duty. A public duty need not arise under a statute. The writ court can direct the authority to exercise the discretion vested and in extraordinary cases even direct the manner in which it is to be exercised. These propositions emerge from the decision of the Apex court in _Comptroller and Auditor General of India vs. K.S.Jagannathan & Another_ (supra) and _Shri.Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandasjiswami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and Ors. v. V.R.Rudani and Ors. (AIR 1989 SC 1607)_ . As far as the decision in _Secretary, Cannanore District Muslim Educational Association, Karimbam Vs. State of Kerala and others,_ it is pertinent to note the facts of the case. The appellant was a defeated petitioner in a writ petition. Government had abolished Pre-degree course in W.P.(C) No.4021 of 2011-C W.P.(C) No.29964 of 2011-U W.P.(C) No.32936 of 2011-N W.P.(C) No.33926 of 2011-S W.P.(C) No.7247 of 2012-E & W.A.No.1967 of 2011 38 1997. Government sanctioned Higher Secondary course to those managements which had lost the Pre-degree course. Appellant was among those who did not get HSC since he did not have existing High School. Later, government decided to sanction HSC for the appellant. But, it could not be implemented due to the stay order. Later when the appellant approached the writ court government took a different stand that it decided to take a policy decision to review the sanction of HSC and the appellant's application could be considered only after review of the sanctions and after finalization of new norms. It is in the said context that the Apex Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and granted relief. For the purpose of deciding the question involved int his case, we need only refer to paragraphs 41 to 43. _“41. The facts of this case clearly show that_ _the appellant is entitled to get the sanction of holding higher secondary classes. In fact_ _the Government committed itself to give the appellant the said facility. The_ W.P.(C) No.4021 of 2011-C W.P.(C) No.29964 of 2011-U W.P.(C) No.32936 of 2011-N W.P.(C) No.33926 of 2011-S W.P.(C) No.7247 of 2012-E & W.A.No.1967 of 2011 39 _Government's said order could not be implemented in view of the court proceedings. Before the procedural wrangle in the court could be cleared, came the change of policy. So it cannot be denied that the appellant has a right or at least a legitimate expectation to get the permission to hold higher secondary classes._ _42. The appellant is a minority institution and its fundamental right as a religious minority institution under Article 30 also has to be kept in view. It is therefore really a case of issuance of mandamus in the appellant's favour._ _43. Merrill on mandamus has observed that it would be a monstrous absurdity if in a well-organised government no remedy is provided to a person who has a clear and_ W.P.(C) No.4021 of 2011-C W.P.(C) No.29964 of 2011-U W.P.(C) No.32936 of 2011-N W.P.(C) No.33926 of 2011-S W.P.(C) No.7247 of 2012-E & W.A.No.1967 of 2011 40 _undeniable right. It has been also observed where a man has a jus ad rem ( a right to a thing) it will be “absurd, ridiculous and shame to the law, if courts have no remedy and the only remedy he can have is by mandamus”_ . A perusal of para 43 would make it clear that the Apex Court took into consideration that the appellant had a clear right and came to the rescue of the person who was sought to be deprived of his right. In this case, it is difficult for us to spell out a clear legal right with the first petitioner association to insist that the policy initiated by the government to redesign the course must be implemented in their favour. Learned government Pleader in fact pointed out that if at all there is benefit it is an indirect benefit. No legal right as such is established. Learned government Pleader also point out that the matter is awaiting communication from the Central Government. Hence, we W.P.(C) No.4021 of 2011-C W.P.(C) No.29964 of 2011-U W.P.(C) No.32936 of 2011-N W.P.(C) No.33926 of 2011-S W.P.(C) No.7247 of 2012-E & W.A.No.1967 of 2011 41 are not inclined to give a direction as such sought by the petitioners. 28. The next aspect of the case of the Trust which we must consider is whether we should leave it free to the Government to consider the case of the Trust for continuance of Course (NCP) till the decision taken by the Government to introduce a new course is actually implemented. Once we have upheld the policy, it may not be open to us to direct the Government to continue the course as such. But, at the same time, we have taken note of the argument of the Trust about the backdrop of facts which culminated in the agreement being executed in the year 2009, the alleged investment which it has made and also the undeniable fact that even as on today Ext.P17 special rules and even the subsequent rules made by the government find a place for the NCP course among the qualifications. No doubt, there is an argument raised that the NCP course is mentioned to cater to persons who have already passed. It is also pointed out that there is an equivalent W.P.(C) No.4021 of 2011-C W.P.(C) No.29964 of 2011-U W.P.(C) No.32936 of 2011-N W.P.(C) No.33926 of 2011-S W.P.(C) No.7247 of 2012-E & W.A.No.1967 of 2011 42 qualification which is put in place. We would only think that it is for the Government to decide the issue as to whether if there is a delay in implementing of the impugned policy of having a new course whether the Trust is to be allowed to run the NCP course. There is a statement filed by the Homoeopathic Council in W.P.(C) No.29964 of 2011. Therein we notice the following inter alia : _“So far there is no statutory body to regulate any course relating to nursing or pharmacy in Homoeopathy. However, if Government of Kerala wishes to conduct NCP course in an existing Homoeopathic medical college, then permission of Central Council of Homoeopathy would be required so that infrastructural requirements for smooth conduct of graduation and Post-_ W.P.(C) No.4021 of 2011-C W.P.(C) No.29964 of 2011-U W.P.(C) No.32936 of 2011-N W.P.(C) No.33926 of 2011-S W.P.(C) No.7247 of 2012-E & W.A.No.1967 of 2011 43 _graduation courses in Homoeopathic medicine are not compromised. The Nursing-cum-Pharmacist course does not require the approval of Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS).”_ Whether the Trust is to be allowed to continue as aforesaid is a matter over which we must not be treated as having pronounced any opinion. We must also make mention of the challenge to the first inspection report by the Trust as also to the decision taken by the Government to order denovo inspection. There are four inspections in all. The earliest inspection is taken exception by the Trust. No doubt, it is the case of the Trust that the first report dated 2.8.2011 was made without any notice to them. There is also the case that the report is highly cryptic inasmuch as it is stated that the hospital does not have any basic facilities. The government felt that there must be a denovo inspection. No doubt, it is taken exception in W.P.(C) No.4021 of 2011-C W.P.(C) No.29964 of 2011-U W.P.(C) No.32936 of 2011-N W.P.(C) No.33926 of 2011-S W.P.(C) No.7247 of 2012-E & W.A.No.1967 of 2011 44 W.P.(C) No.7247 of 2012. Still further pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court there are two other inspection reports. Lastly, there is a report pursuant to the decision by the government to have denovo inspection. In the light of what we propose to do we need not go into the question as to the legality of the first report and also the last report given pursuant to the direction of the government to have denovo inspection. We feel that in the light of the fact that we have upheld the government policy as such the Trust cannot have a legal right to continue and the writ petition filed by the petitioner in this regard is only to be dismissed. We only observe that in the light of facts in this case as the NCP course was begun on the strength of the agreement admittedly with the government our judgment will not stand in the way of the first respondent (Government of Kerala) considering the case of the Trust for continuance of the NCP course if the government feels it fit to consider any such case in the event of the government feel it proper to consider the claim. In such an event we also leave it open to the government to look W.P.(C) No.4021 of 2011-C W.P.(C) No.29964 of 2011-U W.P.(C) No.32936 of 2011-N W.P.(C) No.33926 of 2011-S W.P.(C) No.7247 of 2012-E & W.A.No.1967 of 2011 45 into the four reports and we express no opinion as to weight the government is to attach to the reports. We make it clear that the observation given by us must not be treated as a direction to the Government to consider allowing the Trust to continue. We dispose of the writ petitions and writ appeal as above. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. ( A.HARIPRASAD) JUDGE. MS