IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2011 / 14TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 35645 of 2010(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THE MANAGER, MAR BASELIOS DENTAL COLLEGE, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRTARY (HEALTH), MINISTRY OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE GOVT.OF INDIA, NIRMAN BHAVAN, MAULANA AZAD ROAD, NEW DELHI. 2. THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, AIWAN-E-GALIB MARG, KOTLA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 002. ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI FOR R1 SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 35645 OF 2010(E) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the Manager of a Dental College. According to the petitioner, they had made an application for sanction of a few P.G Courses(MDS) in their college for the academic year 2011- 2012. It is stated that as per the provisions 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, the application has to reach the Central Government on or before 30th of June of the year previous to the academic year, in relation to which the application is made. 2. According to the petitioner their application was received by the Central Government on 30.6.2010. However, by Ext.P7, they were informed that the Central Government had not received their application. Referring to Ext.P5 and P8, the inward register of Ministry of Health and Family Affairs, the Senior Counsel for the petitioner rightly points out that these documents show that the application of the petitioner was received by the Central WPC.No. 35645/2010 :2 : Government on 30.6.2010 itself. On this basis it is contended that the statement in Ext.P7 that their application was not received on or before 30.6.2010 is factually incorrect. 3. I heard the Assistant Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the first respondent and the Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent also. 4. It is evident from Exts.P5 and P8 that the application of the petitioner was received by the first respondent on 30.6.2010. If that be so, the statement in Ext.P7 communication issued by the first respondent that the application of the petitioner was not received in time is factually incorrect. In that view, the application of the petitioner is liable to be considered. In order to avoid any further delay in the matter, it is also clarified that it will be open to the petitioner to produce duplicate copies of their application before the Ist respondent to consider the same. 5. Therefore, I direct that it will be open to the petitioner to submit a duplicate copy of the application made by them within a week from today, in which event, the application shall be reconsidered by the first respondent and orders thereon will be passed after due process thereof, at any rate within 2 weeks thereafter. WPC.No. 35645/2010 :3 : Writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/