The State Government did not have the power to grant permission to start a new college apart from an order made under Section 53(5) of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976.

( 1 ) THE first writ petition is presented by the Indian Medical Association, karnataka Branch, questioning the legality of the order of the State Government dated 14th August 1984 according permission to re-pendents 4 and 5 to establish two medical colleges at Bijapur and Mysore respectively, and has also sought for the issue of a writ to the Government not to consider any application seeking permission to start now medical colleges in the state. The second writ petition is presented by Bijapur Liberal District Educational association and others questioning the validity of the same order, but on different grounds and in addition seeking for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the state Government to accord permission to the Association to start a medical college at Bijapur.

( 2 ) BOTH the petitions were heard together as the validity of the same government Order has challenged in both the petitions.

( 3 ) THE averments, in brief, in W. P. No. 13463/84 are as follows : The petitioner is a society registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration act. It is affiliated to the Indian medical Association. It is an organisation meat for the welfare of the medical profession and medical education. There were already 13 medical colleges in the state out of which 5 are located in the city of Bangalore. There are already about 70,000 Doctors in the State and out of them about 8000 Doctors are unemployed. By permitting new medical colleges about 400 Doctors would remain unemployed annually. The world Health organisation, on consideration of relevant statistics was of the view that there should be one medical college for every 50 Lakhs of population. Having regard to the population of this State, which is about 3 crores, seven medical colleges were more than sufficient, but already there were 13 medical colleges. Out of them three medical colleges have not been recognised, as they do not conform to the standards prescribed by the medical Council of India established under The Indian Medical council Act, 1956, which responsible for ensuing the professional standards and standards of medical education. In or about the year 1980 when the Government was thinking of according permission to a few more medical colleges, there were serious opposition from all corners including the petitioner-organisation. It was also urged that the permitting of medical colleges on payment of capitation fee would be detrimental to public interest. In connection with the agitation against the starling of new medical colleges, the petitioner and Medical Council of India had made representation (vide Annexures a and B. In view of the serious opposition made to the starting of new colleges, the Government constituted a High Power committee consisting of seven persons by order dated 20. 3. 81 (Annexure C ). One of the questions referred for investigation and recommendation was, whether the starting of new private medical colleges in the State should be permitted? (See annexure-D ). The Committee recommended that there should be no more medical colleges in the State. On the basis of the said recommendation, the then Chief Minister made a Press statement which appeared in Deccan herald dated 26th August 1981 to the effect that there would be no more new medical college in the State (Sec Annexure-E ). The said committee had also recommended the abdlition of the capitation fee. Inspite of this, the Government which had refused to accord permission for the starting of new Medical Colleges earlier, has now passed the impugned order, and that too permitting them to collect capitation fee. The decision is arbitrary and based on collateral consideration and, therefore, it is liable to be set aside.

( 4 ) STATEMENT of objection has been filed by the State Government as well as the contesting respondents. The substance of the objection may be summarised thus: the petitioner has no locus standi to present this petition. The petitionera