The main legal point established in the judgment is that the State Government's role in granting the Essentiality Certificate is limited to considering the desirability and feasibility of establishing the college at the proposed location, and the State Government cannot decide on sufficiency of staff or facilities provided, which are within the purview of the Dental Council of India and the Central Government.

1. By consent of counsel for both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

2. The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent relating to the letter (D) No. 120 dated 29.1.2003 and quash the same and direct the first respondent to issue Essentiality Certificate to the Petitioner Trust to establish the Dental College in the name and style of Adiparasakthi Charitable, Medical, Educational and Charitable Trus.t at Melmaruvathur, Tamil Nadu.

3. The case of the petitioner is as follows:-

Adiparsakthi Charitable, Medical, Educational and Cultural Trust at Melmaruvathur, Tamil Nadu is registered under the Societies Registration Act in the year 1978. The main object of the Petitioner/Trust is to establish, maintain, run and develop educational institutions, Schools, Colleges, Polytechnics, Medical and Engineering Colleges without any profit motive. The Petitioner Trust has been running several educational institutions like Higher Secondary Schools, Polytechnics, College of Science, Engineering Colleges, College of Pharmacy, College of Nursing and Paramedical Courses. The Petitioner Trust submitted applications to Dr. M.G.R. Medical University seeking affiliation for dental College at Melmaruvathur and the first respondent/State Government seeking to issue No Objection/Essentiality Certificate after providing all infrastructural facilities for establishing a Dental College. On 14.8.1997, Dr. MGR Medical University wrote a letter to the Petitioner Trust to obtain prior permission from the State Government as required under sub-section 5 of Section 5 of Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University Act, 1987 as amended by Act 32 of 1990 at the first instance and then approach the University for issue of letter of affiliation for obtaining prior permission of the Central Government as required under Section 10-A(i)(b)(i) of the Dentists Amendment Act, 1993. On 15.9.1997, the Government of India has returned the Petitioner application for the below mentioned reasons namely (i) Essentiality Certificate regarding desirability and feasibility of the proposed dental college at the proposed site has not been given (ii) Consent of the University affiliation for the purpose of dental college has not been given and (iii) Details regarding the allocation of land where the proposed Dental college to be constructed. Though the petitioner has provided all infrastructural facilities, the 1st respondent/State Government has not passed any orders for issuance of Essentiality Certificate. Dr. MGR University has granted letter of consent of affiliation pursuant to the resolution dated 28.4.2000. The petitioner has filed another WP No. 17779 of 2000 before this Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the Union of India and Dental Council of India to process the application of the petitioner without insisting for Essentiality Certificate from the 1st respondent herein. On 11.10.2000, this Court passed an order directing the petitioner to approach the Union of India and Dental Council of India to appraise the facts. On 3.8.2001, the 1st respondent has intimated that a Committee was constituted to frame revised guidelines for issuance of Essentiality Certificate to start medical/Dental Colleges by private organisation and stated that on receipt of the report of the Committee, a decision would be taken by it on the application submitted by the petitioner. On 3.9.2001, the second respondent sent a communication informing the date of inspection of the committee on 8.9.2001. The Committee also inspected the College on 8.9.2001 and pointed out certain fresh lapses-and called upon the petitioner to comply with the same. The petitioner has also immediately complied with all the said deficiencies pointed out by the Committee. On satisfaction of the deficiencies complied with by the petitioner, the first respondent has directed the petition