SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(Mad) 692

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.JAYASIMHA BABU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.BALASUBRAMANIAN
H.E.T.C.Educational Society - Appellant
Versus
State of Tamilnadu & Others - Respondents
Writ Petitions No.38106 and 38107 of 2002 and Writ Appeals No.1702, 1927 and 2144 of 2002
Decided On : 23 April 2003

Advocates Appeared:For the Petitioner:Mr. T.R.Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel. For the Respondents:Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy, Additional Advocate General, Mr.V.R.Rajasekaran, Special Government Pleader. Mr.Perumbulavil Radhakrishnan, Advocate. Mr.J.Madanagopala Rao, Senior Central Government Standing Counsel. Mr.M.Vellaichamy, Advocate.

Permission of State Government is not required for starting Dental College.

Headnote:Dentists Act, 1948-Section 10-A-Permission for starting Dental College not granted-Writ petition filed-Writ court gave direction to state government for considering the proposal/request-Writ appeal-Held, Grant of permission for starting Dental College is governed by AICTE Act, Indian Medical Council Act and Dentists Act-No need of permission of State Government-Order of rejection set aside.

Judgment :-

R.Jayasimha Babu, J.

Hindustan Engineering Training Centre (HETC) Educational Society is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and runs six educational institutions. The object of the society is to impart higher education in medical, dental, engineering and other subjects. In the year 1997 it resolved to start a new dental college in the name of Hindustan Institute of Dental Science at Karapakkam, in Kancheepuram District near Chennai.

2. On 07.02.2001 it applied to the Government of India under Section 10-A which was introduced with effect from 27th August 1992 into the Dentists Act, 1948 by Act 30 of 1993, and in accordance with the Establishment of New Dental Colleges Regulations, framed by the Dental Council in exercise of it's powers under Section 10-A read with 20 of the Dentists Act. That proposal was returned to the petitioner on the 23rd of February, 2001 pointing out certain deficiencies and after some of those deficiencies were removed, the proposal was again returned on 15th June 2001, inter alia, on the ground that the Essentiality Certificate from the State Government and letter of affiliation from the University have not been furnished. The petitioner society's request for issue of Essentiality Certificate was rejected by the State Government on 25.09.2002. It's request for affiliation was also rejected by the Dr. MGR Medical University on 18.09.2002. Those two orders have been impugned by the petitioner in writ petitions No.38106 and 38107 of 2002.

3. The petitioner had earlier filed writ petition No.14216 of 2001 for a direction to the Government of India to quash the letter of the Government of India dated 15.06.2001 and to issue a direction to the Government to consider it's application to start a new dental college without insisting upon the Essentiality Certificate and letter of affiliation. The learned single Judge while rejecting the challenge to the order of the Government of India dated 15.06.2001, directed the State Government to consider the request of the petitioner for issuance of Essentiality Certificate and to issue the certificate within a month. University was also directed to issue letter of affiliation within a period of one month. That order of the learned single Judge dated 12.04.2002 is the subject matter of appeals filed by the State, the University and the Petitioner in Writ Appeals No.1702, 1927 and 2144 of 2002.

4. During the pendency of these appeals, the two orders impugned in the two writ petitions No.38106 and 38107 of 2002 came to be made.

5. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that having regard to the order made by the State Government on 18.09.2002 and by the University on 25.09.2002 the writ appeals have become infructuous. The writ appeals are dismissed as having become infructuous.

6. The State Government in it's order dated 25.09.2002 rejected the request for issue of Essentiality Certificate on the ground that the hospital with which the proposed college is to have a tie-up is 12 kms away and thus it is beyond the distance of 10 kms specified in the Regulations framed under section 10-A of the Dentists Act, and further that various facilities like library, laboratory, staff accommodation, and staff in required numbers had not been provided in accordance with the requirement of the Regulations framed by the Dental Council. The failure to furnish the bank guarantee before the Government of India was also cited as a reason.

7. The State Government, in the additional counter affidavit filed by it's Additional Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, has stated that there are already seven private dental colleges functioning in Kancheepuram and adjacent Thiruvallur Districts, which two districts adjoin the city of Chennai, and that in the city of Chennai the Government is running a dental college, that the location of the petitioner's college though in a semi urban area, is very close to the Chennai city and could not be co






























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top