Back
2009 Supreme(Ker) 1154
High Court of Kerala
S. Siri Jagan, J.
S R Educational And Charitable Trust - Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Anr - Respondent
W.P.(C) No. 17835 of 2007
Decided On : 13-06-2009
An applicant seeking permission to establish a dental college can avail any of the three alternatives provided in the regulations for hospital tie-ups, and the chosen alternative is permissible until the construction of their own hospital building is completed.
Headnote:
Regulations - Dental College - Renewal of permission for second year BDS course
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner Trust sought renewal of permission for the second year BDS course in their dental college for the academic year 2007-08. The renewal was not being recommended by the 2nd respondent on the ground that the petitioner had not provided the hospital building within the college campus as required under the Regulations.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had complied with the amended regulations, which provided three alternatives for hospital tie-ups, and had obtained appropriate sanction from the Government of Kerala for tie-up with a hospital. The court held that the 2nd respondent could not rely on the earlier undertaking of the petitioner to deny the permission sought for, as the new Regulations gave related conditions.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to renewal of permission for the second year BDS course, despite not providing the hospital building within the college campus as required under the Regulations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the regulations and held that an applicant seeking permission could avail any of the three alternatives provided, and the third alternative chosen by the petitioner was permissible until the construction of their own hospital building was completed.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to grant the permission sought for by the petitioner and ordered the 2nd respondent to forward their recommendation to the Central Government within a specified timeline.
S. Siri Jagan, J.
1. The petitioner Trust established a dental college. It obtained a letter of intent from the Central Government as also formal permission to establish the college with an annual intake of 50 students for the academic year 2006-07. The University of Kerala granted provisional affiliation for the Dental College. The petitioner obtained permission from the State of Kerala for tie up with the Taluk Headquarters Hospital, Chirayinkeezh, for clinical training of the students till completion of the hospital building within the campus. Now the petitioner seeks direction to the respondents to grant renewal of permission for second year BDS course in the petitioner's dental college for the academic year 2007-08. This is not being recommended by the 2nd respondent as required under the Regulations applicable, on the ground that the petitioner has not provided the hospital building within the college campus as required under the Regulations. The petitioner submits that by virtue of the amended regulations which have come into force on 10/01/2006, the petitioner has three alternatives in this regard. The first is to have the petitioner owns hospital with not less than 100 beds. The second is to have a tie up with a medical college this recognised by the Medical Council of India and the third is to have a tie up with a Government hospital having a provision of at least 100 beds and located within a radius of 10 kms of the proposed dental college, which is extendable till the petitioner establishes own 100 bedded hospital in the same premises. Although in view of the earlier regulations which were in force prior to the present regulations, the petitioner had undertaken to complete the hospital building within one year, the petitioner was unable to complete the construction on the ground of some difficulties regarding the soil, which forced the petitioner to have pile foundation instead of concrete foundation. The petitioner, submits that since the amended regulations permitted the petitioner to have one of the three alternatives, the last of which the petitioner complied with, it was unreasonable on the part of the 2nd respondent not to recommend renewal of permission for the second year.
2. The learned Standing Counsel, for the 2nd respondent vehemently opposes prayers in the writ petition. According to him, as per Ext. R2(a) the petitioner had undertaken to have the hospital building within one year and therefore he has violated the undertaking as a result of which he has become disentitled to the permission sought for. He would also submit that once an applicant avails of one of the three alternatives mentioned in the regulations, he has to stick to that and he cannot change over to the other alternatives. The counsel relies on some clarifications issued by the Government of India in this regard.
3. I have considered the rival arguments in detail.
4. So far as the clarifications relied on by the counsel for the 2nd respondent is concerned, I am not satisfied that the Government of India or the Dental Council of India can issue and rely on any clarification contrary to the language of the regulations themselves. The eligibility and qualifying criteria are fixed by the Regulations dated 10/01/2006, clause 6(2)(h) of which reads thus:
6. Eligibility and qualifying criteria.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
(2) The organizations under sub-regulation (1) shall qualify to apply for permission to establish a dental college if the following conditions are fulfilled: --
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
(h) the applicant owns and manages a General Hospital of not less than 100 beds as per Annexure 1 with necessary infrastructure facilities including teaching pre clinical, para clinical and allied medical sciences in the campus of the proposed dental college,
or
the proposed dental college is located in the proximity of a Government Medical College or a Medical College recognised by the Medical Council of India and an undertaking of the s
