High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition allowed; University to issue rene...

T. Ganesan Pillai v. Union of India and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No. 17132 of 2007 (M)

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • S. Siri Jagan
Judgment Date
2007-06-18
Court Decision / Holding
I. The writ petition is allowed. II. Ext.P16 is quashed. III. The fourth respondent University is directed to issue renewed consent of affiliation to the petitioner within one week from the receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Final Disposition
Writ petition allowed; University to issue renewed consent of affiliation within one week.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • T. Ganesan Pillai, Chairman, T.S. Arunachalam Pillai Memorial Educational and Charitable Trust, Kachani P.O., Thiruvananthapuram

Respondents

  • Union of India
  • Medical Council of India
  • State of Kerala
  • University of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Pirappancode V.S. Sudhir

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Assistant Solicitor General (for Union of India)
  • • Alexander Thomas, Senior Counsel, Medical Council of India
  • • I.V. Pramod, Government Pleader
  • • M. Rajagopalan Nair, Standing Counsel

Case Synopsis & Summary

Petitioner T. Ganesan Pillai, Chairman of the T.S. Arunachalam Pillai Memorial Educational and Charitable Trust, sought renewal of the consent of affiliation from the University of Kerala to start a self-financing medical college. The University declined to renew the consent, on the ground that there was no need for additional medical colleges in the area. The petitioner challenged the decision, contending that the University cannot adjudicate local needs in isolation and that such determinations are within the domain of the statutory authorities (the Union of India and the Medical Council of India). The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Maharashtra v Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya and others (2006) 9 SCC 1, which held that it is not for a University to decide local needs and that this judgment is binding on the first and second respondents. The High Court observed that the University’s ground of lack of local need was not sustainable and quashed the University’s objection Ext.P16. It directed the University to issue renewed consent of affiliation to the petitioner within one week from receipt of the judgment. By this order, the court affirmed that affiliation decisions must not be impeded by conclusions about local demand, guiding the University accordingly.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the University cannot adjudicate local needs in isolation; the decision not to renew consent is beyond the University's jurisdiction and conflicts with the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya (2006) 9 SCC 1. The petitioner relies on this decision to argue that local-need assessments fall outside the University's exclusive domain and that renewal of consent should be directed. The petitioner further asserts that denial of consent cannot sustain basis of presumed lack of demand and that Ext.P16 should be quashed.

Contentions of Respondents

The fourth respondent University contends that there is no need for additional medical colleges in the area; the decision rests on local demand considerations and institutional planning. The Union of India and Medical Council of India are not disputed in their roles regarding approvals, but the University’s stance is that local needs must be weighed before granting renewed affiliation.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya and others2006 (9) SCC 1PositiveThe Supreme Court decision is cited as a controlling authority; the High Court states it has followed this ruling and applies its principle that local needs cannot be decided solely by the University.

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 T. Ganesan Pillai v. Union of India and others 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 S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2007 / 28TH JYAISHTA 1929 WP(C).No. 17132 of 2007(M) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: - -------------- T.GANESAN PILLAI, VENKATACHALA BHAVAN, NETTAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (CHAIRMAN, T.S.ARUNACHALAM PILLAI MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST, KACHANI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM). BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, NIRMAN BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 2. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA, POCKET 14, SECTOR 8, DWARAKA, NEW DELHI - 110075, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R2 BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC, MCI R4 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR R3 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/06/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## APPENDIX (WP(C) NO.17132 OF 2007) ## PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: - Ext.P1: Copy of the consent letter dtd.28.8.2003 issued by the P.R.S.Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. - Ext.P2: Copy of the Essentiality Certificate dtd.12.9.04. - Ext.P3: Copy of the Govt. Order dtd.29.3.06. - Ext.P4: Copy of the letter dtd. 27.9.06. - Ext.P5: Copy of the consent of affiliation dtd.12.1.06. - Ext.P6: Copy of the letter dtd.13.10.06. - Ext.P7: Copy of the receipt dtd.10.10.06. - Ext.P8: Copy of the letter dtd.30.12.06. - Ext.P9: Copy of the letter dtd.24.11.2006. - Ext.P10: Copy of the letter dtd. 15.1.07. - Ext.P11: Copy of the petition dtd.25.1.07 submitted by the petitioner before the University. - Ext.P12: Copy of the letter dtd.5.2.07. - Ext.P13: Copy of the letter dtd.13.2.2007 issued by R1. - Ext.P14: Copy of the petition dtd.6.3.2007 issued by the petitioner before the University. - Ext.P15: Copy of Judgment in W.P(C) No.7864/04. - Ext.P16: Copy of letter dtd.15.5.2007 of R4. - Ext.P17: Copy of No Objection Certificate dtd.17.2.2006. -True Copy- - P.A.to Judge. ## **S. SIRI JAGAN, J. -----------------------------------WP(C) NO. 17132 OF 2007 - M ------------------------------------Dated this the 18th day of June, 2007** ## **J U D G M E N T** Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent-University, the Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the first respondent-Union of India, Sri.Alexander Thomas, counsel appearing for the second respondent- Medical Council of India and the Government Pleader appearing for the third respondent. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the fourth respondent-University to issue renewed consent o affiliation for starting of a Self-financing Medical College. The only contention put forward by the learned Standing Counsel for the fourth respondent is that the University is of opinion that there is no need of additional Medical Colleges in the area in question. The Supreme Court in **State of Maharashtra** v. **Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya and others** (2006) 9 SCC 1 which I have followed in W.P(C) No.10662 of 2006 **WP(C) NO.17132 of 2007** ## **:-2-:** had held that it is not for the University to decide the question as to local needs and it is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the first and second respondents to decide that question. That being so, I am not satisfied with the action of the fourth respondent in refusing the issue of consent of affiliation on the ground now put forward. In the above circumstances, I allow this writ petition and quash Ext.P16 and direct the fourth respondentUniversity to issue renewed consent of affiliation to the petitioner within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. **S. SIRI JAGAN, Judge** Mbs/ ## **WP(C) NO.17132 of 2007** **:-3-:** **S.SIRI JAGAN, J** ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) NO. OF 2001 ------------------------------------ J U D G M E N T ## **WP(C) NO.17132 of 2007** **:-4-:** DATED:01-06-2007 ## **WP(C) NO.17132 of 2007** **:-5-:**