IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO:17462 OF 2010 DATED:21.7.2010 Between: MNR Educational Trust, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. .....PETITIONER AND The Union of India rep by its Secretary (Health) Ministry, New Delhi & another. .....RESPONDENTs This Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO:17462 OF 2010 ORDER: The order dated 15.7.2010 issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (Dental Education), Government of India, New Delhi refusing to grant renewal of permission to the petitioner, Dental College for the academic year 2010-11, is under challenge. The petitioner Dental College was established in the year 2006. As per Regulation 11 of 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, it is required to obtain renewal of permission from the Central Government each year until the first batch of its students takes the Final year Examinations. Accordingly, the petitioner Dental College sought renewal of its permission for the academic year 2010-11 vide its application dated 3.3.2010. It appears that the Dental Council of India caused an inspection of the petitioner College on 22.3.2010 but, surprisingly, slept over the same for over two months thereafter. It was only by letter dated 22.5.2010 that the Dental Council of India pointed out as many as 17 deficiencies noticed during the inspection and called upon the petitioner College to rectify the same and submit its compliance report within five days from the date of issue of the said letter. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner College submitted its reply dated 21.5.2010, appending a report indicating compliance with the deficiencies pointed out by the Dental Council of India. However, the Dental Council of India by letter dated 12.6.2010 addressed to the Government of India recommended that the petitioner College should not be granted renewal of permission. Though reference is made therein to the compliance report submitted by the petitioner College under its letter dated 21.5.2010, it is clear from the contents of the letter dated 12.6.2010 that none of the aspects covered by the said compliance report were dealt with. The deficiencies as pointed out by the Dental Council of India in its earlier letter dated 17.5.2010 were repeated verbatim without dealing with the response of the petitioner College vide its Compliance Report. It appears that the petitioner College’s letter dated 21.5.2010 along with the compliance report were forwarded to the Government of India, as indicated in the concluding portion of the Dental Council of India’s letter dated 12.6.2010. Acting thereupon, the Government of India by the impugned Order dated 15.7.2010 communicated its decision to the petitioner College not to renew its permission for the academic year 2010-11. The letter, brief as it is, may be extracted: “I am directed to say that the Dental Council of India in its letter No:DE-3(228)-2010/1690 dated 12.6.2010 (Copy enclosed) has recommended to the Central Government not to renew the permission for admitting the 5th batch of students in BDS Course at MNR Dental College, Medak District, Sangareddy, Andhra Pradesh, for the academic year 2010- 11, on account of deficiencies indicated in the above referred letter. 2.Keeping in view of the recommendations of DCI and the type and nature of deficiencies pointed out by the Council, Central Government has decided not to grant its renewal permission to your dental college for the academic year 2010- 11. Accordingly, you are hereby directed not to admit any students in BDS course for the academic year 2010-11. 3.Further, as per the provisions of Dentists (Amendment) Act, 1993, a scheme cannot be disapproved without giving an opportunity of hearing. Hence, the dental colleges were given an opportunity of personal hearing on 23rd, 24th and 25th June. 4.In case any admissions are made in violation of this condition, such admissions would be treated as irregular and action under 10B of the Dentists (Amendment) Act, 1993 would be initiated. 5.This issues with the approval of Competent Authority in the Ministry.” Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner College, stated that as many as 70 Colleges which were similarly situated were given a hearing on 23rd, 24th and 25th June, 2010 by the Ministry. He further stated that the compliance report submitted by the petitioner College was again adverted to during the course of such hearing. However, as is evident from the impugned Order, there is no reference whatsoever to the compliance of deficiencies as claimed by the petitioner College in its report appended to its letter dated 21.5.2010. It appears that the non-application of mind displayed by the Dental Council of India in this regard was echoed by the Government of India which seems to have blindly acted upon the recommendation of the Dental Council of India. Trite to state, when the future of the Institution is itself at stake the Authorities concerned, who are seized of the momentous task of deciding as to whether such Institution should be granted renewal of its permission, are expected to discharge such function as a pious obligation. The Petitioner College, having invested valuable monies for building up the infrastructure for providing Medical Education, thereby playing a vital role in the Nation building process, deserves to be given a fair hearing at the very least. Such hearing and consideration is woefully lacking, as is evident from the exercise undertaken by the Dental Council of India and thereafter, the Government of India. Mechanically, both the authorities, without even dealing with the aspects adverted to by the petitioner College in its compliance report, baldly negatived its request for renewal of permission. It may also be noticed that the impugned order dated 15.7.2010 is terse and cryptic. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion and without the same, it becomes lifeless. (RAJ KISHORE JHA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [1]). Viewed thus, the unreasoned order dated 15.7.2010 is legally unsustainable. The impugned Order dated 15.7.2010 is accordingly set aside and the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (Dental Education Section), Government of India is directed to consider the matter afresh taking into account the compliance report submitted by the petitioner College under its letter dated 21.5.2010, duly affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner College and pass reasoned orders as regard the renewal of the petitioner College’s permission for the academic year 2010-11. As it is stated that the process of counseling for making admissions to the academic year 2010-11 is imminent, there is urgency in the matter. Hence, the Government of India shall complete the exercise aforestated within a period of one (1) Week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of at the threshold with the aforestated directions. No order as to the costs. _________________ Justice Sanjay Kumar Date:21.7.2010. Note: C.C. tomorrow. (BO) gurc. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO:17462 OF 2010 21st JULY, 2010 [1] (2003) 11 SCC 579