Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 4055
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUDHAKAR
Asan Memorial Association (regd.) Represented by its General Secretary, Chennai
Versus
Government of India rep. By its Secretary & Others
W.P NO.17666 OF 2010
Decided On : 14-09-2010
For the Petitioner:R. Krishnamoorthy, Senior Counsel for V. Ayyadurai, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, J. Ravindran, Asst. Solicitor General of India & R2, P. Chandrasekaran, Advocate.
The approving authority must consider all relevant material for grant or refusal of approval, and the recommending body is bound to forward the entire file to the approving authority before a final decision is taken.
Headnote:
Dental College - Establishment of new Dental College - Dentist Act 1948, Section 10A r/w 20 - The court discussed the compliance reports submitted by the petitioner, the role of the Dental Council of India (DCI) as a recommending body, and the authority of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to grant approval for the establishment of a new Dental College. The court emphasized the need for the approving authority to consider all relevant material for grant or refusal of approval and directed the DCI to re-inspect the petitioner college and submit a recommendation for re-consideration of the approval.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner applied to establish a new Dental College and submitted compliance reports to the Dental Council of India. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare rejected the scheme based on the DCI's recommendations, without considering the full compliance report submitted by the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the first respondent did not consider the full compliance report submitted by the petitioner and directed the DCI to re-inspect the petitioner college and submit a recommendation for re-consideration of the approval.
Issues: The main issue was whether the first respondent considered the full compliance report submitted by the petitioner and whether the rejection of the scheme was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The approving authority must consider all relevant material for grant or refusal of approval, and the DCI, as a recommending body, is bound to forward the entire file to the approving authority before a final decision is taken.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order rejecting the scheme and remitted the matter to the respondents authority for re-consideration of the petitioners claim for approval of the scheme for starting the Dental College.
1. This writ petition is filed to call for the records comprised in Proc.F.No.V 12017/5/2010-DE on the file of the first respondent dated 15.07.2010 and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to grant permission for starting of the new Dental College by the Petitioner under the name and style of Asan Memorial Dental College and Hospital at Keerapakkam, Kancheepuram District.
2. The petitioner society has already established and are administering several educational institutions. The petitioner applied to the respondents to set up a Dental College. Petitioner submitted an application dated 17.09.2007 as per the Dental Council of India Regulations 2006 framed in terms of Section 10A r/w 20 of the Dentist Act 1948. The competent authority to inspect and recommend the case is the Dental Council of India. The approval has to be given by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (Dental Education Section), New Delhi based on the recommendation of the Dental Council of India. The petitioner has been pursuing his application for quite some time.
3. For the disposal of the present writ petition, this Court is not going into the various events from the date of application except the relevant details which are as follows -
[a] The petitioner after substantial compliance, submitted the third application on 24.09.2009. It had also established a Dental Hospital as per the requirements. The several correspondences were exchanged between the petitioners and the Dental Council of India in order to show compliance with the requirements of the law for granting approval for starting a Dental College.
[b] After substantial compliance, the Dental Council of India carried out inspection on 11.05.2010 and pointed out certain deficiencies by communication dated 17.05.2010. The petitioner partially complied with the deficiencies and submitted a report on 21.05.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner fully complied with all the deficiencies pointed out and submitted a compliance report dated 02.06.2010. In the meanwhile, the second respondents, Dental Council of India (DCI) met on 03.06.2010 at New Delhi to consider the claim of all the Dental Colleges based on the inspection reports furnished to them. The compliance report furnished by the petitioner on 02.06.2010 was received at the office of the second respondent, Dental Council of India 04.06.2010, one day after the meeting. In effect, on the date when all the applications of the Dental Colleges were considered, the full compliance report dated 02.06.2010 submitted by the petitioner was not on file. The second respondent considered all the claims and forwarded the files to the first respondent vide proceedings No.DE 22(356)-2010/698 dated 12.06.2010.
[c] While forwarding the report, the Dental Council of India considered the petitioners letter dated 21.05.2010 alone and did not forward the full compliance report dated 02.06.2010. The first respondent, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (Dental Education Section) passed the impugned order on 15.07.2010. It is pertinent to point out that before passing the impugned order, the first respondent gave an opportunity to the petitioner Dental College a personal hearing. The Petitioner society appeared before the first respondent during the personal hearing and claimed that they have submitted the entire report to establish their case of full compliance on the deficiencies pointed out. Petitioner prayed that the proposal should be approved.
[d] In the present case, the first respondent, based on the recommendation of the Dental Council of India and taking note of the deficiency pointed out, disapproved the scheme for establishment of new Dental College for the academic year 2010 – 2011. Challenging the same, the writ petition has been filed.
4. The first respondent has filed a written submission through Assistant Solicitor General of India Sri. J.Ravindran and the Dental Council of India has filed its counter. Heard the learne
