AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Antony Dominic, J.—Petitioner is a Trust, which has established a Dental College by name, Sri Sankara Dental College at Akathumiri in Varkala Taluk in Thiruvananthapuram District. In this writ petition their grievance is mainly against Ext.P18, an order passed by the Government of India, exercising its powers u/s 10A of the Dentists Act, 1948, declining to renew permission for admitting the 5th batch students in the BDS course for the academic year 2010-2011 on account of various deficiencies indicated in Ext.P19 recommendation of the Dental Council of India, made in exercise of powers under the provisions contained in the Dental Council of India (Establishment of New Dental colleges, Opening of New or Higher Course of Study or Training, and Increase of Admission Capacity in Dental Colleges) Regulations, 2006.
In so far as it is relevant, pursuant to the directions of this Court contained in Ext.P17 interim order dated 06/08/2010, directing the DCI to reconsider Ext.P15 recommendation made by it to the Government of India, an inspector of the Dental Council of India conducted an inspection of the infrastructure and other facilities available in the petitioner''s College, on 12/08/2010. Based on the Inspection, the Inspector submitted Ext.P20 report pointing out deficiencies mainly in the faculty available. The report so submitted by the Inspector was considered by the Executive Committee of the DCI by circulation, on 18/08/2010, and accordingly, the DCI made Ext.P19 recommendation to the Government of India, not to renew its permission for admitting the 5th batch students for the BDS course at the petitioner''s College with 50 seats for the academic year 2010-2011 for the reasons mentioned therein, which are basically a reiteration of what is contained in Ext.P20 report of the Inspector. The Central Government accordingly considered the recommendation of the DCI and passed Ext.P18 order rejecting renewal. In the aforesaid circumstances, prayer now sought for is to quash Exts.P18 and P19 and to direct the Government of India to renew the permission sought for by the petitioner.
The case of the petitioner is that it was contrary to the facts and materials available before the Inspector that he prepared Ext.P20 report. They further contend that the DCI has gone a step further, and made its recommendation is even contrary to the findings of the Inspector in Ext.P20 report.
Learned standing counsel for the DCI, on account of the paucity of time, has made available instructions that has obtained vide communication dated 15/09/2010 from the DCI. From the instructions, it would appear that the stand of the DCI is that the Inspector has inspected the infrastructure available in the College, submitted Ext.P20 report, and it was based on the findings of the Inspector, that the Executive Committee considered the matter and made its recommendation as per Ext.P19. It is also stated that the petitioner had made available certain materials contradicting the findings in Ext.P20 report. But, however, those materials were received by the DCI after the matter was considered by the Executive Committee on 18/08/2010.
Although, the contention of the petitioner that the recommendation of the DCI is against the report of the Inspector is contradicted by the learned standing counsel, and learned Counsel for the petitioner also contradicted the stand of the DCI that the materials furnished by them were received by the DCI after 18/08/2010, fact remains that while the Executive Committee of the DCI considered the matter on 18/08/2010, it did not take into account the materials that were made available by the petitioner to canvass its contention that Ext.P20 report of the Inspector, was contrary to the facts available. Thus, in that view of the matter, I am satisfied that this is an issue which deserves reconsideration by the Executive Committee of the DCI, duly adverting to the report of the Inspector, the materials collected by the Inspector and the materials supplied by the petitioner to the DCI, subsequent to the inspection by the Inspector. On the basis of such a reconsideration, the DCI should make a fresh recommendation to the Government of India, so that the Government of India can have a fresh consideration u/s 10A of the Dentists Act, 1948.
Referring to the instructions, learned standing counsel for the DCI pointed out that in terms of the Apex Court directions, the admission process should be completed before 30/09/2010, and that since the members of the Executive Committee are distributed at various places in the country, it may not be viable to consider the matter within a short time frame. However, I feel if delay is caused, grave prejudice will be caused to the petitioner for the reason that if the petitioner is otherwise eligible and not allowed to make admissions, the petitioner will be loosing an opportunity to admit students in this year, which will have a cascading effect for the entire five years. Therefore, I think it is a fit case, where the DCI should reconsider the matter, at any rate, within one week from today.
In that view of the matter, I dispose of the writ petition quashing Exts.P18 and P19 and directing the Executive Committee of the DCI to reconsider Ext.P20 report, duly adverting to the materials collected by the Inspector, the materials supplied by the petitioner, in a regular meeting or by circulation, and make its report to the Central Government on or before 24/09/2010. Based on such recommendation of the DCI, the Central Government shall take a decision in the matter forthwith.
This writ petition is disposed of as above.