## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT:**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI**
**FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2014/21ST CHAITHRA, 1936**
## **WP(C). No.17120 of 2013 (L)**
**----------------------------**
**PETITIONER(S): ----------------------**
**PRESTIGE EDUCATIONAL TRUST, ANJARAKANDY PO, KANNUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.**
**BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM.**
**RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------**
**1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (DENTAL EDUCATION SECTION), NIRMAN BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110 001.**
**2. THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, AIWAN-E-GALIB MARG KOTHALA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 002.**
**R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASG OF INDIA R2 BY ADVS. SRI.TITUS MANI VETTOM, SC, DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA SRI.N.RAGHURAJ, SC,KERALA DENTAL COUNCI**
**THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-04-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
## **WP(C).No. 17120 of 2013 (L)**
## **APPENDIX**
## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** :-
- **EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.DE-15(214)-2012/B-7183 DATED 25-2-2013.**
- **EXT.P1(A) -TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.DE-15(214)-2012/A-7160 DATED 25-2-2013.**
- **EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER NO.KDC/DC/PG/211112-3 DATED 26-2-13.**
- **EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF PERMISSION NO.V-12017/3/2012-DE DATED 28-3-2013**
- **EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER NO.KDC/GOVI-DE/ 210313-1 DATED 21-3-2013.**
- **EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO.8274/2013 DATED 27-3-2013.**
- **EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.KDC/DCI-DE/210313-2 DATED 5-4-2013.**
- **EXT.P7 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.KDC/GOVI/DE/210313-2 DATED 5-3-2013.**
- **EXT.P8 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.V-12017/03/2012-DE DATED 16-5-2013.**
- **EXT.P9:- TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT IN RESPECT OF FIVE SPECIALITIES.**
## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:- NIL**
/True Copy/
P.A to Judge
## **A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.**
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P(C) No.17120 of 2013 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 11[th] day of April, 2014
## **JUDGMENT**
The petitioner Trust which is conducting several educational institutions in self financing stream, including a dental college by name “Kannur Dental College”, has approached this Court challenging Ext.P8 order, which according to the petitioner, was passed solely on the basis of the recommendation of the Dental Council without referring to the report of the inspectors.
2. The petitioner applied for letter of permission in seven specialities for the post graduate courses to the Dental Council with three seats each. However, three seats have been sanctioned only in two specialities and in respect of five specialities, the sanction was for two seats each. The petitioner alleges that the inspectors, who were deputed to assess the requirement, have not pointed out any deficiencies in respect of four specialities. Even then, the intake permitted is as recommended by the Dental Council without any justification. Therefore, the matter was brought to the attention of the
WP(C).17120/13
## **-:2:-**
first respondent through Ext.P4, which was directed to be considered as per Ext.P5 judgment of this Court. However, Ext.P8 was passed rejecting the request. Thus, the petitioner has come up before this Court.
3. The Dental Council of India, who is the second respondent, have filed a detailed counter. They have contended that the Dentist's Act empowers the DCI to prescribe standards in dental education as well as to frame regulations in the subject. According to them, the Dental Council is guided not only by the inspector's report, but also by the other criteria made mention of in the Dentist Act, 1948.
4. It was further contended that the Apex Court in **Mridul Dhar**
**& Another** v. **UOI & Ors** [(2005) 2 SCC 65] has laid down a time frame for all courses like MBBS, BDS, its PG courses, etc., in the matter of admission process and establishment of colleges etc., wherein it has been ordered that the time schedule for establishment of new colleges or to increase intake in existing colleges should be adhered to strictly by all concerned.
5. Arguments have been heard.
WP(C).17120/13
## **-:3:-**
6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Ext.P8 order has been apparently issued in a mechanical manner solely to make it appear that the direction given by this Court in Ext.P5 has been honoured.
7. The second respondent had pointed out certain minor deficiencies noticed in the inspection, as can be seen from Exts.P1 & P1 (a) communications. The deficiencies pointed out were rectified and the same was intimated to the Dental Council. On intimating the same, the Dental Council recommended LOP in two specialities with three seats, wherein deficiencies were pointed out accepting the rectification of deficiencies. However, in respect of speciality in Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Periodontology and Oral Pathology and Microbiology, no defect has been pointed out by the inspectors appointed by the Dental Council. Even then, the intake permitted is only at the rate of two seats when the application given was for three seats in each of the speciality. It is relevant to note that the consent of affiliation by the University was also for three seats. This, according to the learned counsel for the
WP(C).17120/13
## **-:4:-**
petitioner, is a mistake committed by the Dental Council. However, they are not ready to accept their mistake.
8. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is insisting for a direction to the respondents to reconsider the issue in the light of the inspection report.
9. This request was seriously opposed by the learned counsel for the second respondent as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government. It was pointed out that the Dental Council in these matters is guided by Section 10A(4) of the Dentist Act, 1948. It was pointed out that while making reports, the Dental Council is guided by the parameters made mention of in Section 10A(7), which reads as follows:
“The Council, while making its recommendations under clause (b) of sub-section (3) and the Central Government, while passing an order either approving or disapproving the scheme under sub-section (4), shall have due regard to the following factors, namely:-
- (a) whether the proposed authority or institution for grant of recognised dental qualification or the existing authority or institution seeking to open a new or higher course of study or training, would be in a position to offer the
WP(C).17120/13
## **-:5:-**
minimum standards of dental education in conformity with the requirements referred to in section 16A and the regulations made under sub-section (1) of Section 20;
(b) whether the person seeking to establish an authority or institution or the existing authority or institution seeking to open a new or higher course of study or training or to increase its admission capacity has adequate resources; (c) whether necessary facilities in respect of staff, equipment, accommodation, training and other facilities to ensure proper functioning of the authority or institution or conducting the new course of study or training or accommodating the increased admission capacity have been provided or would be provided within the time-limit specified in the scheme;
(d) whether adequate hospital facilities, having regard to the number of students likely to attend such authority or institution or course of study or training or as a result of the increased admission capacity have been provided or would be provided within the time-limit specified in the scheme;
- (e) whether any arrangement has been made or programme drawn to impart proper training to students likely to attend such authority or institution or course of study or training by persons having the recognised dental qualification.
WP(C).17120/13
## **-:6:-**
The requirement of manpower in the field of practice of dentistry; and
- (g) any other factors as may be prescribed;
10. Unfortunately, Ext.P8 does not reflect that the petitioner's request was rejected on any of these grounds. Though it was strenuously argued by the learned counsel for the second respondent that administrative orders cannot be annulled in exercise of the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, merely because of the fact that sufficient reasons are not stated, I am not inclined to accept the same.
11. The petitioner, who was served with an order, has every reason or right to know why his application has been rejected. The following reasoning is stated in Ext.P8 to reject the claim:
“As regard to suspicion of the college authorities that the number of seats mentioned in LOI was a clerical error, it is to inform you that the same was recommended by the Dental Council of India which reflects in Ministry's LOI dated 20.3.2013. Hence, no clerical mistake was there. Further as per the provisions of Dentists (Amendment) Act, 1993, the opportunity of hearing was granted to only those colleges whose cases had been recommended by the
WP(C).17120/13
## **-:7:-**
Council for disapproval. As per the time schedule appended in DCI Regulation, 2006, the last date for sending recommendation by DCI and for granting permission by the Ministry had already been over in case of MDS course for the year 2013-2014.”
12. Ext.P9, which is the copy of the inspection report which is produced along with the reply affidavit would indicate that there is no deficiency at all. Therefore, this Court is of the definite view that there is no legal rationale for rejecting the petitioner's request.
13. Though it was argued by the learned counsel for the second respondent that as time schedule has been fixed by the Apex Court in the decision cited above, if the request of the petitioner is ordered to be reconsidered, the same would amount to contempt of court. It was also submitted that it is open to the petitioner to make fresh request.
14. In this context, it is relevant to note that the petitioner's request is not to violate the time schedule prescribed by the Apex Court in the matter. If the petitioner's request as prayed for is allowed, the petitioner will be able to make admissions only from the next academic year onwards, as per the time schedule. A fresh request in this regard can be made by the petitioner only after the first batch
WP(C).17120/13
## **-:8:-**
passes out. Therefore, I see no force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the second respondent.
15. As the learned counsel for the petitioner has confined to the legitimate prayer for a direction to the respondents to re-consider Ext.P8, this writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P8 and directing the respondents to reconsider the matter after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. This exercise shall be completed within three months from today.
To facilitate early disposal, the petitioner is at liberty to produce a copy of this judgment along with all supporting documents before the respondent concerned within one month from today.
Sd/- **A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE**
krj
//true copy//
P.A to Judge
