1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6152 OF 2009 Dr.Hedgewar Smruti Rugna Sewa Mandal’s Dental College, Akola-Hingoli Road, Near Basamba Phata, Hingoli, Through its President Mr.Brijlal s/o Tehlaram Khurana Age 74 years, Occu.Business, R/o Jawahar road, Hingoli .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Union of India, Through its Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Department of Health, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi 110 001 2. Dental Council of India, Through its Secretary, Ajwan-E-Galib Marg, Kotala Road, New Delhi 110 002 Through its Secretary .. RESPONDENTS Shri S.S.Rathi, Advocate for petitioner Shri Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General for respondents 1 and 2 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ DATE : 15th September 2009 2 ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER P.V.HARDAS , J ] 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner impugns the communication dated 23.7.2009 by which the petitioner has been informed that the respondent No.1 had decided not to renew the permission of the petitioner institute for second year BDS Course with 50 admissions for the academic year 2009-10. In the light of the limited nature of challenge raised in the petition, we consider it appropriate to decide this petition finally at this stage. 3. We have heard Shri Rathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Alok Sharma, learned Assistant Solicitor General for respondents 1 and 2. It is not necessary for us to advert to the facts of the present case as it would suffice to state that the impugned order came to be passed against the petitioner based upon the earlier findings of existence of certain deficiencies in the infrastructure as well as deficiency relating to appointment of teaching faculty. It appears that the last inspection came to be conducted on 5.6.2009 and the deficiencies were noted and found that they were not being 3 addressed to and consequently the impugned order came to be passed. The petitioner in this petition has contended before us that during the interregnum i.e. during the period between the last inspection and the receipt of the order impugned in this petition, the petitioner has appraised itself to several deficiencies and the deficiencies stand cured/removed. In the light of that statement, therefore, we are inclined to direct the respondents to re-examine as to whether the petitioner has cured/removed all the deficiencies/shortcomings and decide the question afresh. 4. Resultantly, therefore, this writ petition succeeds and the impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to re-examine the question afresh in the light of the statement of the petitioner that the petitioner has removed/cured all the deficiencies/shortcomings. By quashing of the impugned order, however, the petitioner would not be entitled to take the admissions of the students. Till the respondents decide the question afresh the petitioner shall not be entitled to admit the students to the BDS Course. We expect the respondents to decide the question afresh as expeditiously as possible. To ensure that in the event the petitioner succeeds and the permission as sought for is granted, the petitioner is entitled to admit the students in the next academic year. 4 5. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no orders as to costs. 6. Copy of this judgment duly authenticated by the Court Sheristedar be provided to the learned Counsel for the parties to act upon. ( A.V.POTDAR ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE vvr/6152.09wp 5 WRIT PETITION NO. 6152 OF 2009 Date of decision : 15th September 2009 For approval and signature THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE P.V. HARDAS THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE A.V. POTDAR 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers } may be allowed to see the judgment? } Yes. 2. To be referred to the Reorter or not? } Yes/No 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment? } No. 4. Whether this case involves a substantial } question of law as to the interpretation } of the Constitution of India, 1950 or } any Order made thereunder? } No. 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the } Civil Judges? } No. 6. Whether the case involves an important } question of law and whether a copy of } the judgment should be sent to Mumbai, } Nagpur and Panaji offices? } No. [ V.V.RASAL] Personal Assistant to the Honourable Judge