The State Government cannot take a policy decision to reject applications seeking issuance of Essentiality Certificate. The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the Dentists Act, 1948 prevail over any State enactment to the extent the State enactment is repugnant to the provision of the Act.

The Order of the Court was as follows :

Petitioner-University applied to the respondent for issue of No-Objection Certificate for making an application to the Medical Council of India for starting a Medical College in collaboration with Tamil Nadu Hospital Academic Trust. There was no reply from respondent. But the respondent issued a Notification in G. O. No. 347 dated 18-6-1998. In that Notification, it is said that the Government has made it clear that the No Objection Certificate will not be issued by the Government for setting up medical colleges by self-financing institutions. This decision is purported to have been arrived by the Government on the basis of a Report by a High Power Committee appointed to look into the working of educational institutions conducted by self-financing institutions. It is said that the report of the Committee has not been made public, nor was it furnished to the petitioner-University before the above decision was taken. According to the petitioner, the above said notification is ultra vires and the same is liable to be quashed.

2. It is said that the respondent-State cannot restrain the petitioner from setting up an institution for the purpose of imparting medical education, and, therefore, the impugned notification is ultra vires. The Medical Council of India is vested with the power to determine the adequacy of the facilities provided for medical education by an institution, whether University or otherwise. The responsibility for determining the adequacy of the facilities and the competency of the institution to set up a medical college is vested in the Medical Council of India. The role of the State in granting a No-Objection or Essentiality Certificate is very limited. The No-Objection or Essentiality Certificate of the State is essential only for the purpose of securing affiliation to a University. The Report of the High Power Committee should not have been relied on for rejecting the application of petitioner. The Report has not been made public, and petitioner has not been given notice of the same. According to petitioner, the decision of the respondent-Government is arbitrary and, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. Petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of declaration that the Notification No. 347 dated 18-6-1998, issued by the respondent is null and void in so far as the petitioner is concerned, and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.

3. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted on instructions that the State Government is not denuded of powers to take a policy decision. His argument was that th Central Act was only to determine and co-ordinate the need of technical and medical education throughout the country, to ensure harmonisation of standards in medical and technical education, and not to lay down the policy as to where and in which academic year, a college for technical education is to be set up. In support of his submission, learned Additional Advocate General relied on the decision reported in (The Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department v. Jaya Gokul Educational Trust).

4. The only point that arises for consideration is, whether the Government can take a policy decision to reject applications seeking issuance of Essentiality Certificate.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner relied on the decision reported in (Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar Thavathiru Sundara Swamigal Medical Educational and Charitable Trust v. State of Tamil Nadu in support of his contention that the State Government cannot take a policy decision to reject the application of petitioner. In that case, their Lordships of the Honourable Supreme Court considered the scope of Article 254 of the Constitution of India and repugnancy between State and Central Acts. Under Dr. M.G.R. Medical University Act, there was a provision in S. 5(5) which read thus :-

"No college shall be affiliated to the University unless the permissi