IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO:18014 OF 2010 DATED:27.7.2010 Between: Gunampalli Pulla Reddy Charities Trust, Hyderabad & another .....PETITIONERs 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:18014 OF 2010 ORDER: The order dated 15.7.2010 issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (Dental Education Section), 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 25.2.2010. Pursuant to the application dated 25.2.2010 for renewal of permission for the academic year 2010-11, the Dental Council of India caused an inspection of the petitioner College on 25.3.2010. By letter dated 5.5.2010, the Dental Council of India pointed out as many as 13 deficiencies noticed during the inspection and called upon the petitioner College to rectify the same and submit its compliance report. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner College submitted its compliance report dated 8.5.2010, along with necessary documents indicating as to how the deficiencies have been rectified. As one of the deficiencies pertained to the attachment of the petitioner College with the Kurnool Medical College and Hospital, the petitioner college sought to inform the Council that by G.O.Ms.No:128 dated 31.5.2010, it had been given clinical attachment with Kurnool Medical College and General Hospital for a period of four years. However, the petitioner’s letter dated 2.6.2010 in this regard met with the response under letter dated 19.5.2010 that the Council had already forwarded its recommendation dated 15.5.2010 to the Central Government. Basing on the said adverse recommendation, the petitioner college was given a hearing by the Central Government on 24.6.2010. It appears that pursuant to this hearing, the Council was asked once again to cause inspection of the petitioner college. It is the case of the petitioner that no notice was given prior thereto. In any event, a fresh inspection was caused of the petitioner’s college on 6.7.2010 and basing on the same, the Council appears to have submitted a fresh recommendation dated 12.7.2010. The petitioner was not taken into confidence with regard to any of these events. Basing on the recommendation, the impugned order dated 15.7.2010 was passed refusing renewal of permission to the petitioner college for the academic year 2010-11 directing it not to make admissions in BDS course. 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 8.5.2010. It is also to be noted that the Central Government itself directed the Council to depute the second Inspection Committee to the petitioner College. For reasons unknown, this second Inspection was conducted without putting the petitioner College on notice. Be that as it may, the Council by its second recommendation dated 12.7.2010 once again reiterated its earlier opinion that the petitioner was not entitled to renewal of its permission. As is evident from the recommendation letter dated 12.7.2010 the Council once again pointed out a deficiency with regard to the attachment of the petitioner College to the Kurnool Medical College and Hospital, notwithstanding the extension of such attachment under G.O.Ms.No.128 dated 31.5.2010. If this system had been continuing all through for the past four years and the Council found no impediment in recommending renewal of the petitioner College permission during that time, it is inexplicable as to why the same is found fault with at this stage. The order deficiencies pointed out also appear to be sketchy as no parameters are discussed. In the totality of the two inspections made by it, the consideration by the Dental Council of India appears to be rather superficial. There is no discussion whatsoever with regard to the response by the petitioner College in its compliance report dated 08.05.2010 in either of the recommendation letters. 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 8.5.2010, 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 has commenced, 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:27.7.2010. Note: C.C. tomorrow. (BO) gurc. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO:18014 OF 2010 27th JULY, 2010 [1] (2003) 11 SCC 579