The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of collective decision-making and compliance with statutory provisions, particularly the powers and duties of the Planning Board, Academic Council, and Vice Chancellor under the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, 1998.

(Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) :

1. Heard Adv. Mr. Vijay Thorat, with Adv. Mr. A.M. Karad for the petitioner, learned ASGI Mr. Alok Sharma for respondent nos.1 and 4, learned AGP Mr. S.K. Tambe for respondent no.2, Adv. Mr. K.C. Sant for respondent no.3, and Adv. Mr. V.D. Salunke for respondent no.5.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent.

3. The petitioner / management questions the order dated 2nd September 2013 of the State by which Essentiality Certificate has been withdrawn / cancelled, and the order dated 31st August 2013, communicating the order of Vice Chancellor of same date, withdrawing affiliation granted to it.

4. It is not in dispute, that the said order has been served upon the petitioner during the course of hearing of a Writ Petition filed before Bombay Bench. The petitioners therein have filed Civil Application No. 12108 of 2013 before us. They seek their impleadment as interveners to oppose the petition. The impugned orders also direct transfer of students from the Dental College of the petitioner to other suitable colleges. The applicants in Civil Application state that they are interested in seeking transfer.

5. Adv. Mr. Thorat appearing for the petitioner, upon instructions, has stated that the petitioners are not opposing transfer of applicants in Civil Application No. 12108 of 2013. We, therefore, find that any adjudication by this court, in the present petition, is not going to affect the interest of students. In this situation, we have not entertained Civil Application No. 12108 of 2013.

6. Adv. Mr. Thorat has contended that the Essentiality Certificate issued under Section 10A of the Dentists Act, 1948 [For short, "1948 Act"] is one time measure and it is not required to be renewed or continued. It stands exhausted once on its basis, the permission is given by Dental Council. In addition, he points out that here, earlier certificate issued in the year 2002, which was cancelled being substituted by another certificate in 2006, has only been withdrawn by the State Government. The later certificate issued in 2006 is still not touched. He further contends that the order of withdrawal of Essentiality Certificate is also in breach of principles of natural justice as material looked into therein has not been made available to the petitioner.

7. Coming to the order dated 31st August 2013, Adv. Mr. Thorat submits that provisions of 1948 Act contain necessary powers and enable Dental Council of India [For short, "DCI"] to take note of violations and also permit it to take necessary action. To that extent, power of respondent no.3 / Health University to take any step to stop the teaching activity is eclipsed. He has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jaya Gokul Educational Trust : Diocese of Kanjirapally Vs. Commissioner and Secretary to Government Higher Education Department, Thiruvanathapuram, Kerala State : Corn. Miss Ion Er-cum-Secretary, Higher Education [2000(5) SCC 231], and judgment of Division Bench of this Court, in the case of ShriShivaji Education Society, Amravati & another Vs. Maharashtra University of Health Sciences & others [2012(1) Mh.L.J. 799], for the said purpose.

8. Adv. Mr. Thorat has further contended that the impugned action is also in violation of the provisions of Section 73 of the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, 1998 [For short, "1998 Act"]. He invites attention to additional grounds sought to be added by moving an amendment application. He states that withdrawal or cancellation of affiliation has to be by Academic Council. But here, Academic Council has itself left it to the discretion of Vice Chancellor. The Vice Chancellor has looked into certain material which was not made available to the petitioner and by using that material, the impugned order has been formulated. It is also submitted that the impugned order is nothing but re-production of decision earlier taken and, therefore, there is no application o