High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2013-04-03Writ petitions disposed of without adjudication...

P.S.M. College of Dental Science and Research v. Union of India and Dental Council of India

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 2527/2013 (M)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.R. Ramachandra Menon
Judgment Date: 2013-04-03
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petitions disposed of without adjudication on merits. liberty to petitioners to pursue representations; 1st respondent to consider the representations and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within one month from receipt of the judgment copy.
Final Disposition: Writ petitions disposed of without adjudication on merits; liberty to the petitioners to pursue representations; 1st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders within one month from receipt of the judgment copy.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

P.S.M. College of Dental Science and Research

Respondents

Union of India
Dental Council of India

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Sri Anil K. Narendran

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv. Sri P. Parameswaran Nair, ASG of India
• Adv. Sri Alexander Thomas, SC, Dental Council

Case Synopsis & Summary

The Kerala High Court heard three writ petitions (WP(C) Nos. 2527/2013, 2592/2013, 3320/2013) challenging regulatory actions by the Union of India and the Dental Council of India (DCI) regarding increasing the BDS admission capacity at P.S.M. College of Dental Science and Research from 50 to 100. The petitions contend that the college has fulfilled requisite infrastructure and inspection prerequisites (inspected July 2012) and should be considered for approval under the DCI Regulations, 2006, particularly Regulation 6(2)(hh). The petition relies on Exts. P1–P3, P11, and representations (P12, P13) arguing that the college need not show attachment to a Government or Private Medical College Hospital to seek permission to raise intake; they invoke Note 2 of Ext.P1 Schedule, which they contend has Supreme Court sanction in Priya Darshni Dental College and Hospital v. Union of India (2011) 4 SCC 623, as well as guidance from Priya Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh (2012) 7 SCC 433 regarding time schedules. The respondents counter that attachment or equivalent evidence is still required and that the fixed processing schedule cannot be varied. The court, noting the 2nd respondent’s clarifications (Ext. R2(b)), declines to rule on merits and disposes of the petitions, directing the 1st respondent to consider the representations in light of the clarified position and to issue orders within one month, preserving rights for the next academic year if warranted.

Provisions of Law Cited

Dental Council of India (Establishment of New Dental Colleges, Opening of New or Higher Course of Study or Training and Increase of Admission Capacity in Dental Colleges) Regulations, 2006, Regulation 6(2)(hh)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that infrastructure has been provided and an inspection conducted in July 2012. They argue that Regulation 6(2)(hh) of the DCI Regulations, 2006, permits increase of admission capacity without mandatory attachment to a Government or Private Medical College Hospital, especially in light of Exts. P1–P3 and the representations (P12, P13). They rely on Note 2 of Ext.P1 Schedule, alleged to have Supreme Court sanction in Priya Darshni Dental College and Hospital v. Union of India (2011) 4 SCC 623, and on the broader policy that facilitates capacity enhancement for dental colleges. They request a forward transmission of their application to the 2nd respondent for technical scrutiny and timely recommendations for a Letter of Permission for the 2013-14 academic year, without requiring proof of hospital attachments.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contest that the attachment/association with a hospital is essential under the regulations and that the time schedule fixed for processing cannot be varied. While Ext R2(b) provides a clarification, it does not enable a blanket grant of permission. They invoke Priya Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh (2012) 7 SCC 433 to emphasize adherence to the established schedule and regulatory process, and argue that the decision must be made within the prescribed framework, with consideration of the overall regulatory requirements and possible implications for medical education governance.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Priya Darshni Dental College and Hospital v. Union of India	(2011) 4 SCC 623	Positive	Cited by the petitioners as Supreme Court support for interpreting Note 2 of Ext.P1 Schedule and for broadening consideration of capacity expansion in dental colleges.
Priya Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh & others	(2012) 7 SCC 433	Positive	Cited to justify adherence to Apex Court-mandated time schedules and the principle that regulatory decisions follow timely processing as directed by the Supreme Court.
WA.1356/11	WA 1356/11	Mentioned Only	Cited from the Division Bench but without discussion of its holdings in the judgment.
WP(C). No. 8603/12	8603/12	Mentioned Only	Judgment cited in exhibits (R2(C)) without discussion of its holdings in the present judgment.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against P.S.M. College of Dental Science and Research v. Union of India and Dental Council of India and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON** ## **WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2013/13TH CHAITHRA 1935** ## **WP(C).No. 2527 of 2013 (M)** ## **---------------------------** ## **PETITIONER :-** **--------------------------** **P.S.M. COLLEGE OF DENTAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH, BY PASS ROAD, AKKIKAVU P.O.,THRISSUR DISTRICT -680 519, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN P.S MUHAMMED KUTTY HAJI** ## **BY ADV. SRI.ANIL K.NARENDRAN** ## **RESPONDENT :-** **----------------------------** **1. UNION OF INDIA,** **REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, (DENTAL EDUCATION SECTION), NIRMAN BHAVAN, NEW DELHI- 110 011** **2. THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA, AIWAN -E-GALIB MARG, KOTLE ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110 002, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA R2 BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC,DENTAL COUNCIL** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-04-2013, ALONG WITH WPC.NO.2592/2013 AND WP(C)NO.3320/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** ## **WP(C)NO.2527/2013** ## **APPENDIX** - **P1 COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.DE-22-2005 DATED 16/1/2006 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **P2 COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.DE-22-2012 DATED 21/5/2012, PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN THE GAZETTE OF INDIA DATED 22/5/2012** - **P3 COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 10/9/2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT, ALONG WITH APPLICATION DATED 10/9/2012 FOR PERMISSION TO INCREASE ADMISSION CAPACITY FOR BDS COURSE IN P.S.M. COLLEGE OF DENTAL SCIENCE & RESEARCH FROM 50 TO 100, AND A DEMAND DRAFT DATED 10/9/2012 FOR RS.3,00,000/-** - **P4 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 20/9/2012 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **P5 COPY OF THE ESSENTIALITY CERTIFICATE DATED 9/10/2012 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, TO INCREASE ADMISSION CAPACITY FOR BDS COURSE IN P.S.M. COLLEGE OF DENTAL SCIENCE & RESEARCH, FROM 50 TO 100** - **P6 COPY OF THE RE-VALIDATED CONVENT OF AFFILIATION DATED 17/10/2012, ISSUED BY KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, TO INCREASE ADMISSION CAPACITY FOR BDS COURSE IN P.S.M COLLEGE OF DENTAL SCIENCE & RESEARCH,FROM 50TO 100** - **P7 COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 17/10/2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **P8 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 20/12/2012 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **P9 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25/12/2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **P10 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 31/12/2012 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **P11 COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 23/1/2013 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT GRANTING RECOGNITION TO THE EXISTING INTAKE FOR BDS COURSE IN P.S.M. COLLEGE OF DENTAL SCIENCE & RESEARCH, WITH EFFECT FROM 19/7/2012** - **P12 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 6/2/2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT, WITHOUT ITS ENCLOSURE** **2/-** **sts** **-2-** ## **WP(C)NO.2527/2013** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:** **R2(A) COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE DIVISION BENCH IN WA.1356/11 R2(B) COPY OF THE DCI LETTER NO.DE-22-2013/B-6545 DATED 4/5/2013 R2(C) COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WP(C)NO.8603/12** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO.JUDGE** **sts** ## **P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.** .................................................... **W.P.(C). Nos. 2527, 2592 & 3320 of 2013** ...................................................... **Dated this the 3[rd] day of April, 2013** ## **JUDGMENT** The issue involved in all these writ petitions is almost similar and hence these cases are dealt with together. For the purpose of convenience, the prayers raised by the petitioner in W.P.(C).No. 2527/2013 are extracted below: “i) Call for the records leading to Exts.P4, P8 and P10 communications issued on behalf of the 1[st] respondent and issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the same; ii) Declare that, in view of Clause (hh) of Sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 6 of the Dental Council of India (Establishment of New Dental Colleges, Opening of New or Higher Course of Study or Training and Increase of Admission Capacity in Dental Colleges) Regulations, 2006, P.S.M. College of Dental Science & Research, Akkikavu, Thrissur, established in the year 2007, need not have any attachment with a Government or Private Medical College approved or recognized by the Medical Council of India, in order to apply for W.P.C. Nos.2527/13 & 2 Conn.cases -2- increase of admission capacity for BDS Course from 50 to 100; iii) Issued a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1[st] respondent to forward the petitioner's application for permission to increase admission capacity for BDS Course from 50 to 100, in P.S.M College of Dental Science and Research, Akkikavu, Thrissur, submitted along with Ext.P3, to the 2[nd] respondent for technical scrutiny, without insisting for any proof of attachment with the Medical College, and further direct the 2[nd] respondent to make appropriate recommendations to the 1[st] respondent, for issuance of Letter of Permission for the academic year 2013-14 itself;” 2. The respondents 1 and 2 have filed separate counter affidavits rebutting the averments raised in the writ petitions. During the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the issue is mainly with regard to the necessity to have attached Medical College Hospital stands already clarified by the 2[nd] respondent as per Ext.R2(b) produced along with the counter affidavit filed by the 2[nd] respondent. As such, the W.P.C. Nos.2527/13 & 2 Conn.cases -3- applications preferred by the petitioners are liable to be considered by the 1[st] respondent in the light of the said clarification. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all the requisite infrastructure has been provided by the petitioners' institutions well within time and inspection was conducted in July, 2012. The matter was placed for consideration before the General Body and later, the 2[nd] respondent forwarded the matter to the 1[st] respondent on 07.01.2013. After considering the matter, necessary notification was issued on 23.01.2013. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, there was absolutely no lapse or delay on the part of the petitioners in this regard and as such, the petitioners are entitled to have the benefit to be considered and extended by the 1[st] respondent invoking the power and procedure by virtue of Note 2 of Ext.P1 Schedule, which in fact has the sanction of the Supreme Court as well in **Priya Darshni Dental College and Hospital** v **. Union of India 2011 (4) SCC 623** . It is also pointed out that, the petitioner in W.P.(C). No. 2527/2013 has filed Ext.P12 W.P.C. Nos.2527/13 & 2 Conn.cases -4- representation produced along with I.A.NO.2225/2013 in this regard, while similar representation has been filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C).No. 2592/2013 as Ext.P13. The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.3320/2013 submits that the said petitioner will file similar representation within a week for consideration of the said benefit; in the light of Ext.R2(b) 4. The learned Central Government Counsel appearing of the 1[st] respondent submits with reference to the contents of the counter affidavit, particularly, paragraph '10' that, the petitioners are not entitled to have the benefits on other heads as well and that the clarification given by DCI as per Ext.R2(b) alone will not come to their rescue. The learned counsel also submits that the time schedule already fixed cannot be varied for various circumstances, including by virtue of the mandate given by the Apex Court in **Priya Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh & others 2012 (7) SCC 433.** 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners however submits that, the main hurdle stands already cleared by virtue of the Ext.R2(b) and this being the position, even if for any reason the W.P.C. Nos.2527/13 & 2 Conn.cases -5- applications preferred/being preferred by the petitioners cannot be favourably considered by the 1[st] respondent for the 'present year', eligibility in the light of Ext.R2(b) has to be considered for the next year. In the above circumstances, this Court does not find it necessary to adjudicate the issue on merits and these writ petitions are disposed of, with liberty to the petitioners to pursue the representations as aforesaid. The 1[st] respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, at the earliest, at any rate within 'one month' from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. ## **P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.** Kp/-