IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:15.06.2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN W.P.No.10952 of 2010 SRM University (Deemed University under Sec. 3 of the UGC Act) rep. by its Registrar, SRM Nagar, Kattankulathur – 603 203 Kancheepuram District, Tamil Nadu. ... Petitioner vs. 1. The Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, New Delhi. 2. The Secretary, Bahadur Shah Jafar Marg, University Grants Commission, New Delhi – 110 022. 3. The Medical Council of India, rep. by its President, Delhi. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to forthwith grant necessary approval/sanction for starting off campus institutions viz., "Chennai Medical College and Hospital and Research Centre", Trichy. For Petitioner : Mr.V.T.Gopalan, Senior Counsel for Ms.B.Saraswathi For 1st Respondent : Mr.V.Parivallal, Sr. Central Govt. Standing Counsel For 2nd Respondent : Mr.P.R.Gopinathan For 3rd Respondent : Mr.V.P.Raman https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R Heard Mr.V.T.Gopalan, learned Senior Counsel for Ms.B.Saraswathi, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr.V.Parivallal, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent; Mr.P.R.Gopinathan, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and Mr.V.P.Raman, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. 2. By consent of the learned counsel appearing on either side, the writ petition is taken up for disposal. 3. The prayer in this writ petition is for a mandamus seeking to direct the 1st respondent to forthwith grant necessary approval/sanction for starting off campus institutions viz., "Chennai Medical College and Hospital and Research Centre" at Trichy and pass such other orders. 4. According to the petitioner, their University namely, SRM University (Deemed University under Section 3 of the UGC Act) intended to establish off campus at Tiruchirappalli for the purpose of starting "Chennai Medical College and Hospital and Research Centre", for which necessary proposal was sent to the Ministry of Human Resource Development, the 1st respondent herein, on 28.08.2007. The said proposal was forwarded to the University Grants Commission (hereinafter called the "UGC"), by letter dated 22.01.2008. The UGC, vide its letter No.F6-21/2001(CPB-1) dated 13.02.2008 granted No Objection Certificate to start the off campus subject to certain conditions. Based on that Certificate, the petitioner University created necessary infrastructure facilities and appointed faculty members by incurring cost of Rs.150 crores towards construction, equipments and facilities. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that as per the advice of the UGC, the proposal was forwarded to the 1st respondent by letter dated 30.09.2009. Accordingly, the 1st respondent wrote a letter to the UGC requesting to send its recommendations on the above proposal for approval after satisfying that the applicant University obtained necessary approval from statutory bodies and fulfilling all the required qualifications to accord sanction vide letter dated 03.03.2009. Also, a letter was written by the UGC to the Medical Council of India (hereinafter referred to as "MCI"), the 3rd respondent herein, to inspect the petitioner Off campus institution and send its report for further action. Therefore, the petitioner approached the MCI for issuance of letter of permission, for which the MCI had intimated to the petitioner on 13.03.2009 that only on the permission of UGC/Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD), the letter of permission can be issued. In such circumstances, the petitioner was put in a confused situation. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. In the meanwhile, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department sent a letter to the petitioner that the proposed Institute does not have valid consent of affiliation from a University as required under qualifying criteria 2(4) of the Establishment of Medical College Regulation quoting the letters of the MCI dated 31.12.2008 and 10.02.2009. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to get necessary affiliation from an affiliated University and hence approached the Tamilnadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University (hereinafter referred to as "Dr. M.G.R. Medical University) for its affiliation. On 25.05.2009, Dr. M.G.R. Medical University gave its consent of affiliation to the petitioner University. The same was duly brought to the notice of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department, who, in turn instructed the MCI to conduct the inspection of the Off campus centre at Tiruchirappalli vide its letter dated 01.06.2009. Accordingly, the inspection was done on 05th and 06th of June 2009. Thereafter, they had pointed out certain deficiencies in the said inspection. The Registrar of the petitioner University, after rectifying the defects, submitted its compliance report on 29.06.2009, pursuant to which, the second inspection was conducted on 01.07.2009. 7. Pursuant to the inspection report as well as the recommendations of the MCI, the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department accorded their sanction to start medical college from the academic year 2009-10 by the petitioner SRM University with an intake of 150 students by their letter of Intent F.No.120/24/495/07-MEP(P-II) dated 13.07.2009 and 14.07.2009 on their approval. Simultaneously, the petitioner has been pursuing their application to start the off campus medical college at Irungalur Village, Tiruchirappalli. According to the petitioner, the reason being that, when all the infrastructure have been made ready at a huge cost exceeding Rs.150 crores and after employment of medical, paramedical, executive, ministerial and other staff, it would be ideal to expect the petitioner to keep the college non-functional as it would result in benefit to none besides waste of resources. 8. Thereafter, the UGC forwarded the proposal of the petitioner to start off campus University at Trichy to the 1st respondent along with its recommendation for the same for the final decision of the Government of India by their letter dated 05.01.2010 duly communicated to the petitioner. The UGC also requested the petitioner to send reply on the issues raised by the Government of India along with supporting documents in respect of the query raised by the Ministry to their proposal, a copy of which was also enclosed along with the said letter by the UGC. Even though the exact copy of the recommendation of the UGC to the Government of India had not been communicated to the petitioner, the petitioner reliably understood that the UGC after considering the expert committee, recommended that SRM College of Engineering and Technology, Irungalur, Trichy and Chennai Medical College and Hospital, Irangalur, Trichy be brought under the ambit of SRM https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Institute of Science and Technology (Deemed to be University), Chennai, Tamil Nadu. To such letter of the UGC, the petitioner sent a detailed reply on 12.01.2010 and again requested the UGC to pursue the matter with the 1st respondent. 9. While that being so, the MCI, the 3rd respondent herein acted very curiously and strangely in asking the petitioner to discharge the 150 students already admitted to the first year M.B.B.S. Course by Chennai Medical College, Irungalur, Trichy District on the ground that the corrigendum issued on 30.07.2009 by the Ministry, that Vice Chancellor, SRM University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu may kindly be read and substituted with "The Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R.University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu" as endorsee No.3 in the said letter (letter of intent and letter of permission) was not complied with. The said letter on its face disclose total arbitrariness and the petitioner had also filed W.P.No.5903 of 2010 before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court and the said writ petition is admitted and pending disposal of the Writ Petition, the said order has been stayed and interim direction was also issued. 10. According to the petitioner, starting first year M.B.B.S. course in accordance with the letter of intent and letter of permission issued by the Government of India is totally different and independent of the proposal/request of the petitioner to start Off campus Institute at Trichy. As and when such off campus permission is granted, it goes without saying that from that date onwards, students can be admitted and enrolled in the petitioner University. The students already enrolled in Dr. M.G.R. Medical University naturally would complete their course in that University. In other words, the commencement of the course under the aspices of one University will not debar the petitioner to get the off campus status for the said institution. Therefore, this request of the petitioner has to be independently considered for which necessary application had been made to the concerned statutory functionaries and as already submitted, the UGC, after inspection and after the expert committee's report had recommended and sent its favourable advice to the 1st respondent to grant off campus permission status to the petitioner in respect of the institutions, viz., "Chennai Medical College and Hospital and Research Centre" and "SRM College of Engineering & Technologies", etc., that they had started and further proposes to start at Trichy, Tamil Nadu. The petitioner cannot continue to be kept in animated suspension regarding their request for off campus permission since the second year i.e., admissions for the ensuing academic year 2010-11 is also going to commence. Unless all the formalities in this behalf are completed before 01.06.2010, it will not be possible for the petitioner to have the off campus permission status for the ensuing academic year also. Hence, it is just and necessary for the petitioner to file this writ petition for a direction to the 1st respondent to grant necessary approval/sanction for starting off campus institutions, viz., "Chennai Medical College and Hospital and Research Centre". https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 11. This petition was taken up for admission and hearing on 20.05.2010. Mr.V.Parivallal, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel took notice for the 1st respondent and Mr.P.R.Gopinathan, learned counsel took notice for the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, the matter was listed for hearing on 08.06.2010. On that date, Mr.V.P.Raman, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent Medical Council of India took notice for the 3rd respondent and thereafter, the matter was listed for orders on 10.06.2010, on which date, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent produced before this court two of his letters dated 21.05.2010 and 08.06.2010, in which he has written to the 1st respondent to send the counter affidavit, intimating that as per the observation of the Supreme Court in the matter of Medical Education, there is urgency and requested them to send their reply immediately, but there is no response. 12. Mr.V.T.Gopalan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner Institute is having its Head Office in Chennai and proposals are sent by the petitioner University and the same have been transacted between the Union of India and UGC; therefore, he would contend that a cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. He would further submit that the petitioner's application for grant of approval/sanction to start off campus institutions has been sent to the UGC on 12.01.2008, for which the UGC has also conveyed No Objection to start new campus at Trichy under the ambit of SRM University and thereafter, the recommendation was made and through the letter of the UGC dated 05.01.2010, the matter was referred to the 1st respondent for final decision. Therefore, it is obligatory on the part of the 1st respondent to take a final decision on the application of the petitioner for approval/sanction, since the petitioner has complied with the queries raised by the 1st respondent. He would submit that the inaction on the part of the Government to grant off campus permission would result in severe hardship and difficulties to the petitioner. 12a. Learned Senior Counsel would further contend that under Section 3 of the UGC Act, it would be permissible for the Deemed University to open academic centres not only anywhere in India but also in any of the foreign countries. The academic centres in the foreign countries shall be opened only after due permission from the Government of India/UGC and also that of the Government of the host country. Therefore, the petitioner's request for sanction is within the ambit of their University and the 1st respondent has to obligate all its responsibilities. 13. Mr.V.Parivallal, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent has written to the 1st respondent to file counter, but there is no reply from the 1st respondent. Further, on instructions from the 1st respondent and on reference to the letter of correspondence addressed to the Ministry, learned Standing Counsel submitted that the Ministry is within its power to consider the application. However, the Ministry has raised some queries about the proposal. The petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ has been requested to reply on the issues raised by the Government of India along with supporting documents. Otherwise, the petitioner is not bound to proceed with the academic programmes of the proposed new campus at Trichy under the enrolment of SRM Institute of Science and Technology. 14. Mr.P.R.Gopinathan, learned counsel appearing for the University Grants Commission would contend while referring to the letter of UGC dated 05.01.2010 that with reference to the petitioner's proposal to start off campus centre at Trichy, the UGC has referred the matter to the Government of India and the Ministry of Human Resource Development for final decision. 15. Mr.V.P.Raman, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent would contend that there is no relief sought against the 3rd respondent. Therefore, the learned counsel has no instructions to state anything for the relief sought against the Ministry of Human Resource Development to start the off campus Institution. 16. I have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material documents and the relevant provisions of law. 17. A circumspection of the facts of this case would reveal that the petitioner University namely, SRM University (deemed University under Section 3 of the UGC Act), having its Head Office in Chennai, intended to establish off campus at Tiruchirappalli for the purpose of starting "Chennai Medical College and Hospital and Research Centre". It is seen that a proposal was sent to the Ministry of Human Resource Development, the 1st respondent herein, on 28.08.2007 and the same was forwarded to the UGC, by letter dated 22.01.2008. Thereafter, on 13.02.2008, the UGC vide its letter No.F6-21/2001(CPB-1) granted No Objection Certificate to start the Off campus subject to certain conditions. Based on that, the petitioner University created necessary infrastructure facilities and appointed faculty members and they claimed that they incurred cost of Rs.150 crores towards construction, equipments and facilities. The said proposal was forwarded to the 1st respondent, the Ministry of Human Resource Development and the Government of India, on 30.09.2009. The 1st respondent has directed the MCI to inspect the off campus Institutions and sent its report for further action. The petitioner accordingly approached the MCI for issuance of letter of permission. The MCI, in turn, intimated that only on the permission of the UGC/MHRD, the letter of permission can be issued. This communication dated 13.03.2009 was informed to the petitioner about the necessity for permission from the 1st respondent. 18. In the meanwhile, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department sent a letter to the petitioner that the proposed Institution does not have valid consent affiliation from the concerned University as per the Medical Council of Regulation, quoting the letters of MCI dated 31.12.2008 and 10.12.2008. This situation has led the petitioner to approach Dr. M.G.R. Medical University for consent of affiliation and the same was granted to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the petitioner and thereafter, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare instructed the MCI to conduct inspection for off campus Institutions through its letter dated 01.06.2009. The inspection was accordingly done on 05th and 06th of June 2009. Thereafter, they have pointed out certain deficiencies in the said inspection and on rectification of the same, recommendations were made by the MCI to the Government of India and Health and Family Welfare Department and sanction was accorded to the petitioner University to start Medical College from the academic year 2009- 2010 with an intake of 150 students in their letters dated 13.07.2009 and 14.07.2009 and also granted approval for them. 19. While that being so, the UGC forwarded the proposal of the petitioner to start off campus Institutions at Trichy through the Government of India and the Ministry of Human Resource Development, the 1st respondent herein along with the recommendations for the same to take final decision. On 05.01.2010, it was duly indicated to the petitioner about the recommendation with a request to the petitioner to send reply on the issues raised by the Government of India along with supporting documents in respect of the query raised by the Ministry to their proposal. 20. In the meanwhile, the MCI has acted and directed the petitioner to discharge 150 students already admitted in the first year M.B.B.S. course by Chennai Medical College, Irungalur, Trichy District on the ground that the corrigendum issued on 30.07.2009 by the Ministry that Vice Chancellor, SRM University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu may kindly be read and substituted with "The Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R.University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu" as endorsee No.3 in the said letter (letter of intent and letter of permission) was not complied with. This proceedings along with the earlier proceedings have been challenged before the Madurai Bench of this court in W.P.No.5903 of 2010. The Madurai Bench of this court, on 27.04.2010 in M.P.No.3 of 2010 of the said writ petition granted ad-interim direction against the University as prayed for. On 27.04.2010, the Madurai Bench granted interim stay of all further proceedings of the 2nd respondent in M.P.No.2 of 2010 and granted ad-interim direction for a period of eight weeks in M.P.No.4 of 2010 and the said orders are in force till date. 21. In that situation, it is seen that the proposal for starting the off campus Institutions at Trichy is a matter pending consideration, for which the petitioner has made an application and the proposal has been sent to the 1st respondent and in turn, the same was forwarded to the UGC and on their recommendations, it was sent to the Ministry of Human Resource Development and the Ministry raised certain queries. The petitioner University claimed that the queries raised by the Ministry were answered by them, but even after that, the Ministry has not taken a decision. 22. In fact, it is the requirement of the regulations framed by the UGC for considering the proposals for declaring the Institution for deemed to be University under Section 3 of the UGC Act, wherein, it is provided that the Central Government may, on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the advice of the Commission, declare, by notification in the Official Gazette, that any institution for higher education, other than a University, shall be deemed to be a University for the purposes of this Act, and on such a declaration being made, all the provisions of this Act shall apply to such institution as if it were a University within the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2. Therefore, it is the claim of the petitioner under the provisions of the Act that it would be permissible for the deemed University to open academic centres not only anywhere in India but also in any of the foreign countries. The academic centres in the foreign countries shall be opened only after due permission from the Government of India/UGC and also that of the Government of the host country. Therefore, as per the Regulation, it is the Government to take a decision as per the rules and regulations. It is the obligation on the part of the Government of India to take a decision on the proposal of the petitioner to start off campus Institutions. When the application is caused on the respondents, they should act on it, because in the field of medical education, admission procedures are regulated by the time schedule and for these reasons, the decision of the 1st respondent is required to be taken at the earliest within a reasonable time, as they have already stipulated the time limit for making admissions for the particular academic year, namely, 2010-2011. 23. In such view of the matter, the mandamus sought by the petitioner for considering their approval/sanction for starting off campus institutions in the name of "Chennai Medical College and Hospital and Research Centre" at Trichy has to be considered and accordingly the 1st respondent is directed to grant approval/sanction to the petitioner University for starting off campus institutions, viz., "Chennai Medical College and Hospital and Research Centre" at Trichy, if the petitioner's proposal is in order, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2010 is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar abe To : 1. The Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, New Delhi. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The Secretary, Bahadur Shah Jafar Marg, University Grants Commission, New Delhi – 110 022. 3. The President, Medical Council of India, Delhi. 2 cc To Mr.V.Parivallal, , Advocate, SR.40234 1 cc To Mr.V.P.Raman, Advocate, SR.42571 1 cc To Mr.B.Saraswathi, Advocate, SR.42659 1 cc To Mr.P.R.Gopinathan, Advocate, SR.42815 W.P.No.10952 of 2010 ksk(co) pmk.16.6.2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/